5 California opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dowhal v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcaregreen2 sentences2022(Cf. Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare (2004) 32 Cal.4th 910, 934 (Dowhal) [“a truthful warning of an uncertain or remote danger may mislead the consumer into misjudging the dangers stemming from use of the product, and consequently making a medically unwise decision”]; Nicolle-Wagner v. Deukmejian (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 652, 661 (Nicolle-Wagner) [avoiding warnings regarding substances that pose insignificant risk of cancer “will further the statutory purpose [of Prop. 65] in safeguarding the effectiveness of warnings which are given”].) CERT argues that the warnings were require 2018The authority of the FDA, we conclude, extends to barring warnings that are misleading in this fashion." ( Dowhal , supra , 32 Cal.4th at p. 934 , 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 88 P.3d 1 .) Here, the FDA's policy, described in its advisory letters to California's regulators and Attorney General, is that no Proposition 65 warning for acrylamide should be placed on foods, including breakfast cereals, unless and until the science supports such a warning. | 1 | 4 |
Nicolle-Wagner v. Deukmejiangreen1 sentence2022(Cf. Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare (2004) 32 Cal.4th 910, 934 (Dowhal) [“a truthful warning of an uncertain or remote danger may mislead the consumer into misjudging the dangers stemming from use of the product, and consequently making a medically unwise decision”]; Nicolle-Wagner v. Deukmejian (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 652, 661 (Nicolle-Wagner) [avoiding warnings regarding substances that pose insignificant risk of cancer “will further the statutory purpose [of Prop. 65] in safeguarding the effectiveness of warnings which are given”].) CERT argues that the warnings were require | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carlin v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2004This court discussed that concern in Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 162 , 920 P.2d 1347 ], a product liability action in which the plaintiff claimed that the FDA-approved warning for Halcion, a prescription drag, was inadequate because it failed to warn of certain dangers. 2004This court discussed that concern in Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 162 , 920 P.2d 1347 ], a product liability action in which the plaintiff claimed that the FDA-approved warning for Halcion, a prescription drag, was inadequate because it failed to warn of certain dangers. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.