Legal Opinion
Hollman v. Taser International Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided March 8, 2013No. 06-cv-3588 (JFB)(ARL)PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*661MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Mary Hollman, as the Administrator of the Estate of Samuel A. Cox, and the Estate of Samuel A. Cox (collectively, “plaintiff’) brings this action against TASER International Incorporated (“TASER” or “defendant”), alleging that an Electronic Control Device (“ECD”) manufactured by TASER was a contributing factor in the death of Samuel A. Cox (“Cox”). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that TASER was either strictly hable or negligent for failing to warn police officers that repeated applications of an ECD can result in fatal metabolic…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hilaire v. DeWalt Industrial Tool Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2016
- Garcia v. Dutchess CountyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. PHL Variable Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Kuzian v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2013
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.