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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 29 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Urena v. The Biro Manufacturing Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Urena v. The Biro Manufacturing Company Anchor | green | “the adequacy of the instruction or warning is generally a question of fact to be determined at trial and is not ordinarily susceptible to the drastic remedy of summary judgment.” | 10 |
| 2 | Liriano v. Hobart Corp. | green | “intensely fact-specific, including but not limited to such issues as feasibility and difficulty of issuing warnings in the circumstances; obviousness of the risk from actual use of the product; knowledge of the particular product user; and proximate cause.” | 9 |
| 3 | Johnson v. Johnson Chemical Co. | green | “whether a particular way of misusing a product is reasonably foreseeable, and whether the warnings which accompany a product are adequate to deter such potential misuse, are ordinarily questions for the jury.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.