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.
7 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc.green2 sentences1994The danger-utility test, or risk-utility test as it is otherwise known, requires a "weighing of the danger-in-fact of a product to society as a whole against the utility of the product to society as a whole." Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 600 So.2d 701, 707 (La. 1994The danger-utility test, or risk-utility test as it is otherwise known, requires a "weighing of the danger-in-fact of a product to society as a whole against the utility of the product to society as a whole." Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 600 So.2d 701, 707 (La. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hebert v. Brazzel
green
2 sentences1989Keeton, The Meaning of Defect, supra, p. 592; Cf. Hebert v. Brazzel [ 403 So.2d 1242 (La. 1981)], supra. This first reason for concluding that a design is defect is governed by the same criteria for deciding whether a product is unreasonably dangerous per se. 1989Keeton, The Meaning of Defect, supra, p. 592; Cf. Hebert v. Brazzel, supra . | 4 | 1986–1989 |
Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
green
2 sentences2008Id. 1986"This is the same danger-utility test applied in determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous per se." Halphen, supra, at p. 115 . | 2 | 1986–2008 |
Sharkey v. STERLING DRUG INC.
green
1 sentence1994App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1099 , 1100 (La.1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.