Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 20, 2002No. 45A03-0105-CV-155Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

RILEY, JUDGE,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. I concur with the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s grant of Appellee retailers’ motion to dismiss City’s public nuisance complaint. I would, however, reverse the trial court’s grant of Appellee manufacturers’ and Appellee distributors’ Motions to dismiss the public nuisance complaint. I would further reverse the trial court’s grant of all Appellees’ motions to dismiss the negligence and product liability claims.

I. Public Nuisance

The majority finds that Appellee manufacturers…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1990
  3. City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. FMC Corp. v. BrownIndiana Supreme Court · 1990
  5. FMC Corp. v. BrownIndiana Court of Appeals · 1988

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API