§Why CasetextPricing

KIM v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

Amicus Curiae Brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America

16 Cited authorities

  1. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

    26 Cal.4th 465 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,229 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Restating the same criteria for exceptions from the rule set forth in section 1714

  2. Soule v. General Motors Corp.

    8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 1,244 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the consumer expectations test was not appropriate for a claim that a car was defective because the wheel assembly detached in accident

  3. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.

    20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 589 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of injury caused by product's design, the burden should shift to the defendant to prove that the product is not defective

  4. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.

    717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 150 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court's construction requiring a direct connection would exclude a preferred embodiment of the invention, where Figure 6 depicted lift frame connected to mounting frame via an intermediate removable hitch arm

  5. Brown v. Superior Court

    44 Cal.3d 1049 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 279 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding manufacturers immune from strict liability for pharmaceutical design defects

  6. SR Intern. Business Ins. v. World Trade Center

    467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that expert qualified on basis of experience "must show how his or her experience . . . led to [the expert's] conclusion or provided a basis for [the expert's] opinion"

  7. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.

    8 Cal.3d 121 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 261 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting portion of section 402A of the Restatement Second of Torts while approving other portions of that section

  8. Austin v. Will-Burt Co.

    361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that warnings on a telescoping news truck mast clearly warned that contact with power lines could cause death

  9. Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC

    893 F. Supp. 2d 523 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that terrorist claims of responsibility are not exceptions to hearsay as statements against interest because terrorists believe taking credit for an attack is a benefit, not a detriment

  10. Reach Music Publ'g, Inc. v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc.

    988 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 16 times
    Admitting expert testimony on industry custom and practice based on the expert's experience where the expert “provide [d] an explanation of how that experience [was] a sufficient basis for his opinion and that it was reliably applied to generate this opinion”

  11. Section 411.310 - Presumptions in product liability actions

    Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.310   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that “it shall be presumed, until rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, that the product was not defective if the design, methods of manufacture, and testing conformed to the generally recognized and prevailing standards or the state of the art in existence at the time the design was prepared, and the product was manufactured”

  12. Section 7.72.050 - Relevance of industry custom, technological feasibility, and nongovernmental, legislative or administrative regulatory standards

    Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.050   Cited 20 times

    (1) Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory standards or administrative regulatory standards, whether relating to design, construction or performance of the product or to warnings or instructions as to its use may be considered by the trier of fact. (2) When the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with

  13. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or