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.
8 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fuhrman v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Fuhrman v. State, 265 Neb. 176, 183-84 , 655 N.W.2d 866, 873 (2003). 2005Fuhrman v. State, 265 Neb. 176, 183-84 , 655 N.W.2d 866, 873 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Tansy v. Dacomed Corp.green2 sentences2000See, e.g., Tansy v. Dacomed Corp., 890 P.2d 881 (Okla. 1994); Castrignano, supra; Toner, supra; Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, supra. When a risk-utility test is applied, the existence of a reasonable alternative design is generally the central factor. 2000See, e.g., Tansy, supra; Toner, supra; Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, supra. Because the application of comment k. is traditionally viewed as an exception and a defense to strict liability, courts generally place the initial burden of proving the various risk utility factors on the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heathred1 sentence1987See, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (1983); Rix v. General Motors Corp., _ Mont. _, 723 P.2d 195 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sharkey v. Board of Regents
green
2 sentences2003Sharkey v. Board of Regents, 260 Neb. 166 , 615 N.W.2d 889 (2000). 2003Sharkey v. Board of Regents, 260 Neb. 166 , 615 N.W.2d 889 (2000). | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2016Cite as 293 Neb. 123 (2010), we abandoned the risk-utility test and adopted the duty analysis set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (2010). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Moglia v. McNeil Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2000See, e.g., Tansy v. Dacomed Corp., 890 P.2d 881 (Okla. 1994); Castrignano, supra; Toner, supra; Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, supra. When a risk-utility test is applied, the existence of a reasonable alternative design is generally the central factor. 2000See, e.g., Tansy, supra; Toner, supra; Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, supra. Because the application of comment k. is traditionally viewed as an exception and a defense to strict liability, courts generally place the initial burden of proving the various risk utility factors on the defendant. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000See, e.g., Tansy v. Dacomed Corp., 890 P.2d 881 (Okla. 1994); Castrignano, supra; Toner, supra; Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, supra. When a risk-utility test is applied, the existence of a reasonable alternative design is generally the central factor. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Rahmig v. Mosley MacHinery Co.
green
2 sentences2000This is commonly referred to as the “consumer expectations test.” See Annot., 73 A.L.R.5th 75 (1999). *558 In Rahmig v. Mosley Machinery Co., 226 Neb. 423 , 412 N.W.2d 56 (1987), we discussed criticisms of the consumer expectations test as embodied in § 402 A and the application in other jurisdictions of a risk-utility test in determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. 2000This is commonly referred to as the “consumer expectations test.” See Annot., 73 A.L.R.5th 75 (1999). *558 In Rahmig v. Mosley Machinery Co., 226 Neb. 423 , 412 N.W.2d 56 (1987), we discussed criticisms of the consumer expectations test as embodied in § 402 A and the application in other jurisdictions of a risk-utility test in determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
POPPLE BY POPPLE v. Rose
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Rix v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1987See, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (1983); Rix v. General Motors Corp., _ Mont. _, 723 P.2d 195 (1986). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
O'BRIEN v. Muskin Corp.
green
2 sentences1987After criticizing the user-contemplation test, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (1983), applied the risk-utility test, reviewed various aspects of a products liability claim based on strict liability for design defect, and stated: By implication, risk-utility analysis includes other factors such as the “state-of-the-art” at the time of the manufacture of the product. . . . 1987After criticizing the user-contemplation test, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (1983), applied the risk-utility test, reviewed various aspects of a products liability claim based on strict liability for design defect, and stated: By implication, risk-utility analysis includes other factors such as the “state-of-the-art” at the time of the manufacture of the product. . . . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.