5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equipment Co.green2 sentences2026Co., 269 Ga. App. 891, 894 (1)(b) ( 605 SE2d 384 ) (2004). 2026Co., 269 Ga. App. 891, 894 (1)(b) ( 605 SE2d 384 ) (2004). | 2 | 2 |
Buford v. Toys R' US, Inc.green2 sentences2007Co., 269 Ga. App. 891, 894 (1) (a), (b) ( 605 SE2d 384 ) (2004); Buford v. Toys R’ Us, 217 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) ( 458 SE2d 373 ) (1995); Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 645-646 (2) ( 299 SE2d 897 ) (1983). 2007Co., 269 Ga. App. 891, 894 (1) (a), (b) ( 605 SE2d 384 ) (2004); Buford v. Toys R’ Us, 217 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) ( 458 SE2d 373 ) (1995); Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 645-646 (2) ( 299 SE2d 897 ) (1983). | 2 | 2 |
Ellis v. Rich's, Inc.green2 sentences2007OCGA § 51-1-11.1 (b) (“For purposes of a product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort, a product seller is not a manufacturer as provided in Code Section 51-1-11 and is not liable as such.” 6 ); Farmex, Inc. v. Wainwright, 269 Ga. 548, 549-550 ( 501 SE2d 802 ) (1998); Ellis v. Rich’s, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 577 ( 212 SE2d 373 ) (1975); Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, 270 Ga. App. 517, 519-521 (2) ( 607 SE2d 153 ) (2004); Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equip. 2007OCGA § 51-1-11.1 (b) (“For purposes of a product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort, a product seller is not a manufacturer as provided in Code Section 51-1-11 and is not liable as such.” 6 ); Farmex, Inc. v. Wainwright, 269 Ga. 548, 549-550 ( 501 SE2d 802 ) (1998); Ellis v. Rich’s, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 577 ( 212 SE2d 373 ) (1975); Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, 270 Ga. App. 517, 519-521 (2) ( 607 SE2d 153 ) (2004); Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equip. | 1 | 1 |
Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, Inc.green2 sentences2007OCGA § 51-1-11.1 (b) (“For purposes of a product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort, a product seller is not a manufacturer as provided in Code Section 51-1-11 and is not liable as such.” 6 ); Farmex, Inc. v. Wainwright, 269 Ga. 548, 549-550 ( 501 SE2d 802 ) (1998); Ellis v. Rich’s, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 577 ( 212 SE2d 373 ) (1975); Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, 270 Ga. App. 517, 519-521 (2) ( 607 SE2d 153 ) (2004); Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equip. 2007OCGA § 51-1-11.1 (b) (“For purposes of a product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort, a product seller is not a manufacturer as provided in Code Section 51-1-11 and is not liable as such.” 6 ); Farmex, Inc. v. Wainwright, 269 Ga. 548, 549-550 ( 501 SE2d 802 ) (1998); Ellis v. Rich’s, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 577 ( 212 SE2d 373 ) (1975); Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, 270 Ga. App. 517, 519-521 (2) ( 607 SE2d 153 ) (2004); Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equip. | 1 | 1 |
Farmex Inc. v. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences2007OCGA § 51-1-11.1 (b) (“For purposes of a product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort, a product seller is not a manufacturer as provided in Code Section 51-1-11 and is not liable as such.” 6 ); Farmex, Inc. v. Wainwright, 269 Ga. 548, 549-550 ( 501 SE2d 802 ) (1998); Ellis v. Rich’s, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 577 ( 212 SE2d 373 ) (1975); Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, 270 Ga. App. 517, 519-521 (2) ( 607 SE2d 153 ) (2004); Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equip. 2007OCGA § 51-1-11.1 (b) (“For purposes of a product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort, a product seller is not a manufacturer as provided in Code Section 51-1-11 and is not liable as such.” 6 ); Farmex, Inc. v. Wainwright, 269 Ga. 548, 549-550 ( 501 SE2d 802 ) (1998); Ellis v. Rich’s, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 577 ( 212 SE2d 373 ) (1975); Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, 270 Ga. App. 517, 519-521 (2) ( 607 SE2d 153 ) (2004); Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equip. | 1 | 1 |
Giordano v. Ford Motor Companygreen1 sentence2007Co., 269 Ga. App. 891, 894 (1) (a), (b) ( 605 SE2d 384 ) (2004); Buford v. Toys R’ Us, 217 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) ( 458 SE2d 373 ) (1995); Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 645-646 (2) ( 299 SE2d 897 ) (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Ream Tool Co. v. Newtongreen2 sentences1998Alltrade, [Inc. v. McDonald, 213 Ga. App. 758, 759 ( 445 SE2d 856 )]; Ream Tool Co. v. Newton, 209 Ga. App. 226, 227 (3a) ( 433 SE2d 67 ) (1993).” Buford v. Toys R’ Us, 217 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) ( 458 SE2d 373 ). 1998Alltrade, [Inc. v. McDonald, 213 Ga. App. 758, 759 ( 445 SE2d 856 )]; Ream Tool Co. v. Newton, 209 Ga. App. 226, 227 (3a) ( 433 SE2d 67 ) (1993).” Buford v. Toys R’ Us, 217 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) ( 458 SE2d 373 ). | 1 | 1 |
Alltrade, Inc. v. McDonaldgreen2 sentences1998Alltrade, [Inc. v. McDonald, 213 Ga. App. 758, 759 ( 445 SE2d 856 )]; Ream Tool Co. v. Newton, 209 Ga. App. 226, 227 (3a) ( 433 SE2d 67 ) (1993).” Buford v. Toys R’ Us, 217 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) ( 458 SE2d 373 ). 1998Alltrade, [Inc. v. McDonald, 213 Ga. App. 758, 759 ( 445 SE2d 856 )]; Ream Tool Co. v. Newton, 209 Ga. App. 226, 227 (3a) ( 433 SE2d 67 ) (1993).” Buford v. Toys R’ Us, 217 Ga. App. 565, 566 (1) ( 458 SE2d 373 ). | 1 | 1 |
Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co.green2 sentences1994He relies on Georgia cases which adopt a rule from the Second Restatement of the Law of Torts, § 400. [1] That rule states that "`[o]ne who puts out as his own product a chattel manufactured by another is subject to the same liability as though he were its manufacturer.'" Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., 141 Ga. App. 175, 179 ( 233 SE2d 33 ) (1977). 1994He relies on Georgia cases which adopt a rule from the Second Restatement of the Law of Torts, § 400. [1] That rule states that "`[o]ne who puts out as his own product a chattel manufactured by another is subject to the same liability as though he were its manufacturer.'" Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., 141 Ga. App. 175, 179 ( 233 SE2d 33 ) (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Tyler v. PepsiCo, Inc.green2 sentences1994As this Court noted in Tyler v. Pepsico, 198 Ga. App. 223, 225 (1) ( 400 SE2d 673 ) (1990), quoting Daniel v. American Optical Corp., 251 Ga. 166, 167 (1) ( 304 SE2d 383 ) (1983), OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) "is in derogation of the common law and `"must be strictly construed or limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed and not extended beyond plain and explicit terms." (Cits.)' [Cit.]" An entity which merely affixes its label to a product and sells it under its name is a product seller rather than a manufacturer under OCGA § 51-1-11 and is not liable in a product liability action based 1994As this Court noted in Tyler v. Pepsico, 198 Ga. App. 223, 225 (1) ( 400 SE2d 673 ) (1990), quoting Daniel v. American Optical Corp., 251 Ga. 166, 167 (1) ( 304 SE2d 383 ) (1983), OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) "is in derogation of the common law and `"must be strictly construed or limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed and not extended beyond plain and explicit terms." (Cits.)' [Cit.]" An entity which merely affixes its label to a product and sells it under its name is a product seller rather than a manufacturer under OCGA § 51-1-11 and is not liable in a product liability action based | 1 | 1 |
Daniel v. American Optical Corp.green2 sentences1994As this Court noted in Tyler v. Pepsico, 198 Ga. App. 223, 225 (1) ( 400 SE2d 673 ) (1990), quoting Daniel v. American Optical Corp., 251 Ga. 166, 167 (1) ( 304 SE2d 383 ) (1983), OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) "is in derogation of the common law and `"must be strictly construed or limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed and not extended beyond plain and explicit terms." (Cits.)' [Cit.]" An entity which merely affixes its label to a product and sells it under its name is a product seller rather than a manufacturer under OCGA § 51-1-11 and is not liable in a product liability action based 1994As this Court noted in Tyler v. Pepsico, 198 Ga. App. 223, 225 (1) ( 400 SE2d 673 ) (1990), quoting Daniel v. American Optical Corp., 251 Ga. 166, 167 (1) ( 304 SE2d 383 ) (1983), OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) "is in derogation of the common law and `"must be strictly construed or limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed and not extended beyond plain and explicit terms." (Cits.)' [Cit.]" An entity which merely affixes its label to a product and sells it under its name is a product seller rather than a manufacturer under OCGA § 51-1-11 and is not liable in a product liability action based | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences1977Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 , 27 Cal. Rptr. 697 ( 377 P2d 897 , 13 ALR3d 1049) (1963). 1977Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 , 27 Cal. Rptr. 697 ( 377 P2d 897 , 13 ALR3d 1049) (1963). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.