Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Cartergreen2 sentences2017In a pre Products Liability Act case, the Court stated: “Notwithstanding the government regulations in this field, the package insert is a marketing or merchandising procedure to promote sales.” Thompson v. Carter, 518 So. 2d 609, 612 (Miss. 1987) (holding that a package insert was admissible in a medical malpractice case). 2017In a pre Products Liability Act case, the Court stated: “Notwithstanding the government regulations in this field, the package insert is a marketing or merchandising procedure to promote sales.” Thompson v. Carter, 518 So. 2d 609, 612 (Miss. 1987) (holding that a package insert was admissible in a medical malpractice case). | 2 | 2 |
Palmer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.green2 sentences2014In cases where a warning is of the nature “that it causes a potential plaintiff to fail to read the warning which causes his injuries,” the warnings are thus “potentially inadequate because they are presented in a manner that prevents the customer from reading them and being warned.” Palmer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 904 So.2d 1077, 1085 (Miss.2005) (quoting E.R. 2012In cases where a warning is of the 18 nature “that it causes a potential plaintiff to fail to read the warning which causes his injuries,” the warnings are thus “potentially inadequate because they are presented in a manner that prevents the customer from reading them and being warned.” Palmer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 904 So. 2d 1077, 1085 (Miss. 2005) (quoting E.R. | 2 | 2 |
Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. v. Fortenberrygreen2 sentences2014“The issue of a warning’s adequacy is factual and usually will be resolved by the trier of fact.” Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. v. Fortenberry, 530 So.2d 688, 692 (Miss.1988). 2012“The issue of a warning’s adequacy is factual and usually will be resolved by the trier of fact.” Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. v. Fortenberry, 530 So. 2d 688, 692 (Miss. 1988). | 2 | 2 |
Nelson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.green1 sentence2023“Generally, a premises owner has a duty to provide an independent contractor . . . with a ‘reasonably safe place to work or give warning of danger.’” Nelson v. Sanderson Farms Inc., 969 So. 2d 45, 50 (¶8) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
City of Natchez v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2022We further explained that “[section11-46-9(1)(v)] does not exempt the District from liability for causing the dangerous condition through the negligent or willful actions of its employees.” Id. at (¶14) (citing City of Natchez v. Jackson, 941 So. 2d 865, 876 (¶33) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Robert Calonkey v. Amory School Districtgreen2 sentences2020Additionally, subsection (v) prevents government liability for a failure-to-warn claim when the dangerous condition is “obvious to one exercising due care.” Calonkey, 163 So. 3d at 943 (¶13). 2020Critical to our analysis, “the fact that a dangerous condition is obvious only exempts [a governmental entity] from liability for the failure to warn of the condition.” Id. at (¶14) (citing Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Mayfield v. the Hairbendergreen1 sentence2018Id. at 735-36 (¶¶11-14). | 1 | 1 |
3M Co. v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2015Pierce points out that “[t]here are two prongs a failure to warn claim must meet.” In order “[t]o rely on an inadequate warning to establish the existence of a defect, plaintiffs must prove that: 1. the manufacturer or seller knew or in the light of reasonably available knowledge should have known about the danger; and 2. that the ordinary user or consumer would not realize its dangerous condition.” 3M Co. v. Johnson, 895 So.2d 151, 166 (Miss.2005) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-68(c)(i) (Rev.2014)). | 1 | 1 |
William T. Brantley v. City of Horn Lake, Mississippired1 sentence2015See Brantley v. Horn Lake, 152 So.3d 1106 (Miss.2014). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vu v. Clayton
green
1 sentence2023The circuit court found that the failure- to-warn claim was barred by the intimately connected doctrine, as addressed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Peak v. Cohee, 294 So. 3d 604 (Miss. 2020), and Vu v. Clayton, 765 So. 2d 1253 (Miss. 2000). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.