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 15 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 Martin v. Hacker.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Martin v. Hacker Anchor | green | “the manufacturer's duty to caution against a drug's side effects is fulfilled by giving adequate warning through the prescribing physician, not directly to the patient.” | 4 |
| 2 | DiBartolo v. Abbott Laboratories | green | “a plaintiff must demonstrate that the warning was inadequate and that the failure to adequately warn of the dangers of the drug was a proximate cause of his or her injuries.” | 4 |
| 3 | DiBartolo v. Abbott Laboratories | green | “under new york law, a pharmaceutical manufacturer has a duty 'to warn of all potential dangers in its prescription drugs that it knew, or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known to exist.” | 4 |
| 4 | Salva v. Blum | green | “lack of informed consent is not a theory of liability upon which an injured person may sue the manufacturer of a defective product.” | 3 |
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.