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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1993–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.green2 sentences1998Most recently, in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., supra, 487 U.S. 500 , the United States Supreme Court recognized that, under certain circumstances, the government contractor defense may preclude product liability actions for design defects brought by third parties against suppliers of military equipment. 1998Both the plaintiff and the defendants have argued that if the government contractor defense does apply to the defendants, then before the defendants are deemed to be immune from liability CT Page 9857 under that defense, they must prove that they have satisfied the three-pronged test set forth in Boyle : Liability for design defects in military equipment cannot be imposed, pursuant to state law, when (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of | 2 | 5 |
Frontier Pilots Litigation Steering Committee v. Texas Air Corp.green2 sentences1995The question on appeal was whether “a pre-existing Military Specification (MIL-S), which was incorporated by reference in the Detail Specification for the helicopter involved in the fatal crash, constituted a ‘reasonably precise specification’ that the manufacturer was required to meet.” Id. 1995Id., 563. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 523153green2 sentences1995See, e.g., Lewis v. Babcock Industries, Inc., supra, 985 F.2d 88 ; Ramey v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., 874 F.2d 946, 950-51 (4th Cir. 1989). 1995See, e.g., Ramey v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., 874 F.2d 946 (4th Cir. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 532776green1 sentence1995Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 890 F.2d 698, 703 (4th Cir. 1989) (failure of landing gear on F/A-18; “general qualitative specifications” held not to be reasonably precise specifications), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 953 , 10 S. Ct. 2219 , 109 L. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 537621green1 sentence1995See In re Joint Eastern & Southern District New York Asbestos Litigation, supra, 632. | 1 | 1 |
In Re BROOKLYN NAVY YARD ASBESTOS LITIGATION (Joint Eastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation)green1 sentence1995In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 971 F.2d 831, 839-40 (2d Cir. 1992). “ ‘[I]t is not unreasonable to imagine that . . . government contracts often may focus upon product content and design while leaving other safety-related decisions, such as the method of product manufacture or the nature of product warnings, to the contractor’s sole discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Mcdonnell Douglas Corporationgreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1993) (denying summary judgment based on government contractor defense where manufacturing defect was alleged); McGonigal v. Gearhart Industries, Inc., 851 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1988) (jury found contractor was not performing in compliance with government specifications regarding inspection procedures); Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 3d 1305 , 273 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1990) (applying federal law, finding triable issue of fact concerning existence of substantial conflict between federal interest and state law under Boyle)-, Dill | 1 | 1 |
In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation.green1 sentence1995See In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 996 F.2d 1425, 1436 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. United Technologies Corp.
green
2 sentences1998In Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732 , 660 A.2d 810 (1995), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that under Boyle the government contractor defense could apply in a case involving military equipment that the United States government had purchased for resale to a foreign government. 1998In Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732 , 660 A.2d 810 (1995), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that under Boyle the government contractor defense could apply in a case involving military equipment that the United States government had purchased for resale to a foreign government. | 3 | 1996–1998 |
Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1998Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 , 60 S.Ct. 413 , 84 L.Ed. 554 (1940), in which the court, relying on agency theory, barred suits against government contractors performing public works projects. 1998Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 , 60 S.Ct. 413 , 84 L.Ed. 554 (1940), in which the court, relying on agency theory, barred suits against government contractors performing public works projects. | 3 | 1995–1998 |
McDermott v. TENDUN CONSTRUCTORS, ROHR INDUSTRIES, INC.
green
2 sentences1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S. , 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); Mc Dermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. 1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S., 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); McDermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Feres v. United States
green
2 sentences1998The Feres doctrine, based on Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 146 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 159 , 95 L.Ed 152 (1950), renders the U.S. immune from tort liability for injuries to servicemen arising out of or in the course of any activity incident to military service. 1998The Feres doctrine, based on Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 146 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 159 , 95 L.Ed 152 (1950), renders the U.S. immune from tort liability for injuries to servicemen arising out of or in the course of any activity incident to military service. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 10,727 Dr. Walter Burgess and Mrs. Walter H. Burgess v. Colorado Serum Company, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S. , 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); Mc Dermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. 1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S., 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); McDermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Valerie Boruski v. The United States of America, Merck, Sharp and Dohme Company, and the City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation
green
2 sentences1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S. , 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); Mc Dermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. 1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S., 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); McDermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Mary Carley v. Wheeled Coach
green
2 sentences1998The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Carley v. Wheeled Coach, supra, provided a very well reasoned analysis of Boyle and concluded that the Supreme Court did not intend to limit the government contractor defense to suppliers of military equipment. 1998The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Carley v. Wheeled Coach, supra, provided a very well reasoned analysis of Boyle and concluded that the Supreme Court did not intend to limit the government contractor defense to suppliers of military equipment. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Vermeulen v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S. , 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); Mc Dermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. 1998The following Courts have held that the defense is available to all manufacturers: Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993); Boruski v. U.S., 803 F.2d 1421 , 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co. 772 F.2d 844 , 846 (11th Cir. 1985); Vermeulen v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192 , 251 Cal Rptr. 805 , 809-810 (1988); McDermott v. TENDUN Constructors, 211 N.J. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Mcgonigal v. Gearhart Industries
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1993) (denying summary judgment based on government contractor defense where manufacturing defect was alleged); McGonigal v. Gearhart Industries, Inc., 851 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1988) (jury found contractor was not performing in compliance with government specifications regarding inspection procedures); Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 3d 1305 , 273 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1990) (applying federal law, finding triable issue of fact concerning existence of substantial conflict between federal interest and state law under Boyle)-, Dill | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Jackson v. Deft, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995See, e.g., Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1993) (denying summary judgment based on government contractor defense where manufacturing defect was alleged); McGonigal v. Gearhart Industries, Inc., 851 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1988) (jury found contractor was not performing in compliance with government specifications regarding inspection procedures); Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 3d 1305 , 273 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1990) (applying federal law, finding triable issue of fact concerning existence of substantial conflict between federal interest and state law under Boyle)-, Dill 1995See, e.g., Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1993) (denying summary judgment based on government contractor defense where manufacturing defect was alleged); McGonigal v. Gearhart Industries, Inc., 851 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1988) (jury found contractor was not performing in compliance with government specifications regarding inspection procedures); Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 3d 1305 , 273 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1990) (applying federal law, finding triable issue of fact concerning existence of substantial conflict between federal interest and state law under Boyle)-, Dill | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
green
1 sentence1995Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 890 F.2d 698, 703 (4th Cir. 1989) (failure of landing gear on F/A-18; “general qualitative specifications” held not to be reasonably precise specifications), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 953 , 10 S. Ct. 2219 , 109 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Sayles v. Circuit Court
green
1 sentence1995Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 890 F.2d 698, 703 (4th Cir. 1989) (failure of landing gear on F/A-18; “general qualitative specifications” held not to be reasonably precise specifications), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 953 , 10 S. Ct. 2219 , 109 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dillaplain v. Lite Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1993) (denying summary judgment based on government contractor defense where manufacturing defect was alleged); McGonigal v. Gearhart Industries, Inc., 851 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1988) (jury found contractor was not performing in compliance with government specifications regarding inspection procedures); Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 3d 1305 , 273 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1990) (applying federal law, finding triable issue of fact concerning existence of substantial conflict between federal interest and state law under Boyle)-, Dill | 1 | 1995–1995 |
cluster 416621
green
1 sentence1993McKay v. Rockwell International Corp., supra, 704 F.2d at 450 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,474 Scott E. Lewis and Victoria Lewis v. Babcock Industries, Inc., McDonnell Douglas Corp., and General Dynamics Corporation
green
1 sentence1993Lewis v. Babcock Industries Inc., 985 F.2d 83 (2nd. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.