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 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Cargreen2 sentences2015Maduike v. Agency Rent-a-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 7, 953 P.2d 24, 27 (1998) ("[C]omparative negligence reductions do not apply when the claim is based on strict liability."). 2015Maduike v. Agency Rent-a-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 7, 953 P.2d 24, 27 (1998) ("[C]omparative negligence reductions do not apply when the claim is based on strict liability."). | 4 | 4 |
Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.green2 sentences2015Where a plaintiff alleges that such warnings were not adequately given, the "plaintiff carries the burden of proving, in part, that the inadequate warning caused his injuries." Rivera v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 125 Nev. 185, 190, 209 P.3d 271, 274 (2009). 8 Because products liability claims allege strict liability, comparative negligence is not a defense to a prima facie case of such liability. 2015Where a plaintiff alleges that such warnings were not adequately given, the "plaintiff carries the burden of proving, in part, that the inadequate warning caused his injuries." Rivera v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 125 Nev. 185, 190, 209 P.3d 271, 274 (2009). 8 Because products liability claims allege strict liability, comparative negligence is not a defense to a prima facie case of such liability. | 4 | 4 |
Lewis v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc.green2 sentences2017Id. at 104-05 , 65 P.3d at 248 . 2017Id. at 104-05, 65 P.3d at 248. | 1 | 2 |
Riley v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.green1 sentence2009See Riley, 856 P.2d at 200 (concluding that the adoption of a heeding presumption was inconsistent with Montana’s strict product liability failure-to-wam law, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the inadequate warning caused his in *194 juries); DeJesus v. Craftsman Machinery Co., 548 A.2d 736, 744 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988) (concluding that there is no presumption that an inadequate warning was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries because the plaintiff bears the burden of proving proximate cause); Harris v. International Truck and Engine, 912 So. 2d 1101, 1109 (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
DeJesus v. Craftsman Machinery Co.green1 sentence2009See Riley, 856 P.2d at 200 (concluding that the adoption of a heeding presumption was inconsistent with Montana’s strict product liability failure-to-wam law, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the inadequate warning caused his in *194 juries); DeJesus v. Craftsman Machinery Co., 548 A.2d 736, 744 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988) (concluding that there is no presumption that an inadequate warning was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries because the plaintiff bears the burden of proving proximate cause); Harris v. International Truck and Engine, 912 So. 2d 1101, 1109 (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. International Truck and Engine Corp.green1 sentence2009See Riley, 856 P.2d at 200 (concluding that the adoption of a heeding presumption was inconsistent with Montana’s strict product liability failure-to-wam law, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the inadequate warning caused his in *194 juries); DeJesus v. Craftsman Machinery Co., 548 A.2d 736, 744 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988) (concluding that there is no presumption that an inadequate warning was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries because the plaintiff bears the burden of proving proximate cause); Harris v. International Truck and Engine, 912 So. 2d 1101, 1109 (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Sims v. General Telephone & Electronicsgreen2 sentences2009Sims v. General Telephone & Electric, 107 Nev. 516, 524 , 815 P.2d 151, 156 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. Action Equip. and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349 , 1356 n.4, 951 P.2d 1027 , 1031 n.4 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 122 Nev. 1213 , 148 P.3d 684 (2006). 2009Sims v. General Telephone & Electric, 107 Nev. 516, 524 , 815 P.2d 151, 156 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. Action Equip. and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349 , 1356 n.4, 951 P.2d 1027 , 1031 n.4 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 122 Nev. 1213 , 148 P.3d 684 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Sims v. General Telephone & Electric, 107 Nev. 516, 524 , 815 P.2d 151, 156 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. Action Equip. and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349 , 1356 n.4, 951 P.2d 1027 , 1031 n.4 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 122 Nev. 1213 , 148 P.3d 684 (2006). 2009Sims v. General Telephone & Electric, 107 Nev. 516, 524 , 815 P.2d 151, 156 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. Action Equip. and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349 , 1356 n.4, 951 P.2d 1027 , 1031 n.4 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 122 Nev. 1213 , 148 P.3d 684 (2006). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Tucker v. Action Equipment & Scaffold Co.
green
2 sentences2009Sims v. General Telephone & Electric, 107 Nev. 516, 524 , 815 P.2d 151, 156 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. Action Equip. and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349 , 1356 n.4, 951 P.2d 1027 , 1031 n.4 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 122 Nev. 1213 , 148 P.3d 684 (2006). 2009Sims v. General Telephone & Electric, 107 Nev. 516, 524 , 815 P.2d 151, 156 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. Action Equip. and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349 , 1356 n.4, 951 P.2d 1027 , 1031 n.4 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 122 Nev. 1213 , 148 P.3d 684 (2006). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Schupbach
green
2 sentences1985Outboard Marine Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 162 , 561 P.2d 450 (1977). 1985Outboard Marine Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 162 , 561 P.2d 450 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.