40 Cited authorities

  1. Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 304 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability
  2. Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

    97 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 313 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen analyzing questions of federal law, the transferee court should apply the law of the circuit in which it is located"
  3. Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust

    424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005)   Cited 221 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiffs place of work is insufficient [to establish causation,]" and rather that a plaintiff must show "a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural"
  4. O'Neil v. Crane Co.

    53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 173 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products
  5. Codling v. Paglia

    32 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 427 times
    Holding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury
  6. Micallef v. Miehle Co.

    39 N.Y.2d 376 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 359 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting obviousness of the danger as a complete bar to negligence claims but retaining it with respect to strict product liability claims
  7. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

    26 Cal.3d 588 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 301 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding DES manufacturers liable under California law in proportion to their market shares
  8. Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire Co.

    79 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 210 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no duty to warn about another manufacturer's product when defendant manufactured only sound products and had "no control over the production" of the defective products at issue in the case
  9. Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assocs. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

    121 A.D.3d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 100 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a duty to warn may arise in such a situation
  10. Simonetta v. Viad Corp.

    165 Wn. 2d 341 (Wash. 2008)   Cited 90 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[b]ecause [product manufacturer] was not in the chain of distribution of the dangerous product, we conclude not only that it had no duty to warn under negligence, but also that it cannot be strictly liable for failure to warn"
  11. Section 524 - Effect of discharge

    11 U.S.C. § 524   Cited 5,066 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a discharge "operates as an injunction against ... an act, to collect, recover or offset" a discharged debt
  12. s 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1-a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation