5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–1996 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences1995In reversing the judgment, we stated, “Under the circumstances, it is not plaintiffs’ duty to identify which of the vapors caused or contributed to the chronic renal failure but, rather, it is the duty of the defendants who supplied Midcor with their products to prove the contrary.” (Id. at p. 873, citing Summers, supra, at pp. 85-86 .) Similarly, Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, supra, 26 Cal.3d 588 , adapted the Summers rule to a novel situation in which the plaintiff could not prove which manufacturer supplied a drug for prenatal care which caused injuries to her daughter many years later. 1995In reversing the judgment, we stated, “Under the circumstances, it is not plaintiffs’ duty to identify which of the vapors caused or contributed to the chronic renal failure but, rather, it is the duty of the defendants who supplied Midcor with their products to prove the contrary.” (Id. at p. 873, citing Summers, supra, at pp. 85-86 .) Similarly, Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, supra, 26 Cal.3d 588 , adapted the Summers rule to a novel situation in which the plaintiff could not prove which manufacturer supplied a drug for prenatal care which caused injuries to her daughter many years later. | 1 | 2 |
Michigan v. Summersgreen2 sentences1993(United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 509, 100 S.Ct. 3051 ].) The People contend the detention was lawfiil under Michigan v. Summers, supra, 452 U.S. 692 ; appellant submits the circumstances of her detention—a visitor to a business establishment—render the Summers rule inapplicable. 1993(United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 509, 100 S.Ct. 3051 ].) The People contend the detention was lawfiil under Michigan v. Summers, supra, 452 U.S. 692 ; appellant submits the circumstances of her detention—a visitor to a business establishment—render the Summers rule inapplicable. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Mendenhallgreen2 sentences1993(United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 509, 100 S.Ct. 3051 ].) The People contend the detention was lawfiil under Michigan v. Summers, supra, 452 U.S. 692 ; appellant submits the circumstances of her detention—a visitor to a business establishment—render the Summers rule inapplicable. 1993(United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 509, 100 S.Ct. 3051 ].) The People contend the detention was lawfiil under Michigan v. Summers, supra, 452 U.S. 692 ; appellant submits the circumstances of her detention—a visitor to a business establishment—render the Summers rule inapplicable. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Summers v. Tice
green
2 sentences1996Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury.” (Summers, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 86 .) Summers was based on a provision of the Restatement of Torts, which states: “Where the conduct of two or more actors is tortious, and it is proved that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there is uncertainty as to which one has caused it, the burden is upon each such actor to prove that he has not caused the harm.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 433B, subd. (3), italics added.) Much of the rationale for application of the Summers 1996Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury.” (Summers, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 86 .) Summers was based on a provision of the Restatement of Torts, which states: “Where the conduct of two or more actors is tortious, and it is proved that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there is uncertainty as to which one has caused it, the burden is upon each such actor to prove that he has not caused the harm.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 433B, subd. (3), italics added.) Much of the rationale for application of the Summers | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Menne v. Celotex Corporation
green
2 sentences1995Nebraska law would then require that defendant to prove the exposure was unlikely to have been frequent or long enough to be a substantial factor in causing [the plaintiff’s injury].” ( 861 F.2d at p. 1468 , italics added.) The Summers rule, as applied in Menne v. Celotex Corp., supra, 861 F.2d 1453 , offers a means of resolving the dilemmas of proving causation in asbestos litigation in a manner consistent with California precedents. 1995Nebraska law would then require that defendant to prove the exposure was unlikely to have been frequent or long enough to be a substantial factor in causing [the plaintiff’s injury].” ( 861 F.2d at p. 1468 , italics added.) The Summers rule, as applied in Menne v. Celotex Corp., supra, 861 F.2d 1453 , offers a means of resolving the dilemmas of proving causation in asbestos litigation in a manner consistent with California precedents. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.