11 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Stove Manufacturing Company v. Hodgesgreen2 sentences2004Products liability claims based on principles of strict liability for defectively manufactured items were first recognized in Mississippi when the Mississippi Supreme Court applied Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in State Stove Manufacturing Co. v. Hodges, 189 So.2d 113, 118 (Miss.1966), which involved the explosion of a water heater. 1974This issue must be resolved by analyzing the requirements of the American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965) [hereinafter cited as Rest. (2d) Torts § 402A], which this Court first adopted in State Stove Manufacturing Company v. Hodges, 189 So.2d 113 (Miss. 1966). | 1 | 2 |
Clark v. Brass Eagle, Inc.green1 sentence2019See Clark v. Brass Eagle Inc., 866 So. 2d 456, 460-61 (¶18) (Miss. 2004) (recognizing that section 11-1- 63 “[i]s the starting point for a products liability claim . . .”). ¶16. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Echostar Communications Corp.green1 sentence2019Thompson v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 89 So. 3d 696, 700 (¶15) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Clark Sand Co.green1 sentence2015Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So.3d 331, 335 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Barnes v. Clark Sand Co., Inc., 721 So.2d 329, 332 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 36. | 1 | 1 |
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webbgreen2 sentences2015Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So.3d 331, 335 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Barnes v. Clark Sand Co., Inc., 721 So.2d 329, 332 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 36. 2015Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 1st Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Wolf v. Stanley Worksgreen1 sentence2004In Wolf v. Stanley Works, 757 So.2d 316, 319 (Miss.Ct.App.2000), the Court of Appeals correctly recognized Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-63 as the "starting point" for a products liability claim: A plaintiff has the burden of showing that the defect that allegedly was the proximate cause of injury existed at the time that the product left the hands of the manufacturer, and that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. | 1 | 1 |
Early-Gary, Inc. v. Waltersgreen1 sentence1987See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Reeves, 486 So.2d 374, 378 (Miss. 1986); Toliver v. General Motors Corp., 482 So.2d 213, 216 (Miss. 1985); and Early-Gary, Inc. v. Walters, 294 So.2d 181, 186 (Miss. 1974). *1192 In Toliver v. General Motors Corp., supra , the Court, in addressing the products liability claim arising by reason of design, said: In a design case, just as in the case of a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must show that the product was defective and that its defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to him. | 1 | 1 |
Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Reevesred1 sentence1987See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Reeves, 486 So.2d 374, 378 (Miss. 1986); Toliver v. General Motors Corp., 482 So.2d 213, 216 (Miss. 1985); and Early-Gary, Inc. v. Walters, 294 So.2d 181, 186 (Miss. 1974). *1192 In Toliver v. General Motors Corp., supra , the Court, in addressing the products liability claim arising by reason of design, said: In a design case, just as in the case of a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must show that the product was defective and that its defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to him. | 1 | 1 |
Toliver v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences1987See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Reeves, 486 So.2d 374, 378 (Miss. 1986); Toliver v. General Motors Corp., 482 So.2d 213, 216 (Miss. 1985); and Early-Gary, Inc. v. Walters, 294 So.2d 181, 186 (Miss. 1974). *1192 In Toliver v. General Motors Corp., supra , the Court, in addressing the products liability claim arising by reason of design, said: In a design case, just as in the case of a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must show that the product was defective and that its defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to him. 1987See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Reeves, 486 So.2d 374, 378 (Miss. 1986); Toliver v. General Motors Corp., 482 So.2d 213, 216 (Miss. 1985); and Early-Gary, Inc. v. Walters, 294 So.2d 181, 186 (Miss. 1974). *1192 In Toliver v. General Motors Corp., supra , the Court, in addressing the products liability claim arising by reason of design, said: In a design case, just as in the case of a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must show that the product was defective and that its defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to him. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
May v. VFW POST NO. 2539
green
2 sentences2006In May, 577 So.2d at 375 , this Court stated: Because May brought a negligence claim against the VFW, he had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. 2004In May, 577 So. 2d at 375 , this Court stated: 23 Because May brought a negligence claim against the VFW, he had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. | 2 | 2004–2006 |
Anne Duffy Pokorny, Administratrix of the Estate of John Duffy, Deceased v. Ford Motor Company
green
1 sentence1997Pokorny, 902 F.2d 1116 (3rd Cir.1990). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lynda D. Perry v. Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc. And Abc Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1997These decisions further are consistent with the Fifth Circuit's finding in Perry v. Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., 957 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir.1992), that a products liability claim arising from a faulty air bag was neither expressly nor inferentially preempted by the Safety Act. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Smith v. Temco, Inc.
green
1 sentence1975"Under the amended statute, a nonresident manufacturer of a dangerously defective or unsafe product who places it in interstate commerce for the purpose of distribution and ultimate sale to consumers in other States, whether with a specific intent that it be distributed, sold and used in this State or not, may be subjected to a personam action for damages in the courts of this State by such consumer who may be injured in this State as a result of its defective or unsafe condition." [ 252 So.2d at 216 ]. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.