6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 596408green1 sentence2019See Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc. , 981 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Nider v. Republic Parking, Inc.green1 sentence2011See, e.g., Nider v. Republic Parking, Inc., 169 P.3d 738 , 744 n. 7 (Okla.Civ.App.2007) (noting a plaintiff may maintain an action for premises liability independent of a design defect claim where injury results from an integral part of the structure). *241 Indeed, the nature of the landowner’s duty to protect an invitee from dangerous conditions is ongoing, so there is no danger of stale claims or having to defend against “ ‘some long-forgotten act or omission[,]’ ” which is the primary basis for creating a statute of repose. | 1 | 1 |
Kissel v. Rosenbaumgreen1 sentence2011See Gill, 940 N.E.2d at 334 (quoting Kissel v. Rosenbaum, 579 N.E.2d 1322, 1328 (Ind.Ct.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Gill, 940 N.E.2d at 334 (quoting Kissel v. Rosenbaum, 579 N.E.2d 1322, 1328 (Ind.Ct.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc.green2 sentences2004Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc., 683 N.E.2d 264, 267 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). 2004Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc., 683 N.E.2d 264, 267 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Dias v. Daisy-Heddongreen2 sentences2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), reh’g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that “evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous,” and holding that evidence of a BB gun’s alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do 2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), reh’g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that “evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous,” and holding that evidence of a BB gun’s alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do | 1 | 1 |
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,173 Martha Haddix v. Playtex Family Products Corporationgreen2 sentences2000To the contrary, the court addressed the issue of whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of a defendant on a design defect claim because the plaintiff "had failed to meet the requirements of the consumer contemplation test." Id. at 686 . 2000To the contrary, the court addressed the issue of whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of a defendant on a design defect claim because the plaintiff “had failed to meet the requirements of the consumer contemplation test.” Id. at 686 . | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.green2 sentences2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App. 1990), reh'g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that "evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous," and holding that evidence of a BB gun's alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do 2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), reh’g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that “evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous,” and holding that evidence of a BB gun’s alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence1990But cf., State v. Hall (1982), Ind., 432 N.E.2d 679, 681 . 4 F. State of The Art Defense Wards urges application of its state of the art defense to both the design defect and warning theories of liability, arguing in essence that its tire was designed and labeled in conformity with the prevalent industry standards and customs at the time of manufacture. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford
green
1 sentence2019See I.C. § 34-20-2-2 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford , 868 N.E.2d 806 , 810 (Ind. 2007). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000In the apólleme analysis we consider whether the legal duty that is the predicate of the Eblings’ design defect claim constitutes a “requirement! ] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” the EPA regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b); Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524 , 112 S.Ct. at 2621 . 2000In the apólleme analysis we consider whether the legal duty that is the predicate of the Eblings’ design defect claim constitutes a “requirement! ] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” the EPA regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b); Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524 , 112 S.Ct. at 2621 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Marshall v. Clark Equipment Co.
green
2 sentences2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App. 1990), reh'g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that "evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous," and holding that evidence of a BB gun's alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do 2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), reh’g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that “evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous,” and holding that evidence of a BB gun’s alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Marshall v. Clark Equipment Co.
neutral
2 sentences2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App. 1990), reh'g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that "evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous," and holding that evidence of a BB gun's alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do 2000Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), reh’g denied (holding that a design defect claim based upon the existence of a safer alternative cigarette design was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Dias v. Daisy-Heddon, Inc., 180 Ind.App. 657, 664-665 , 390 N.E.2d 222, 226-227 (1979) (noting that “evidence of alternative designs may be relevant to the question of whether the design in question is unreasonably dangerous,” and holding that evidence of a BB gun’s alternative design should have been admitted at trial, although the failure to do | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Voit v. Allen County
green
2 sentences1997First, it cites Voit v. Allen County, 634 N.E.2d 767 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. 1997First, it cites Voit v. Allen County, 634 N.E.2d 767 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.