Legal Opinion

City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 2002No. 2000-1705PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

{¶ 1} On April 28, 1999, plaintiff-appellant, the city of Cincinnati, filed a complaint against fifteen handgun manufacturers, three trade associations, and one handgun distributor, seeking to hold them responsible under nuisance, negligence, and product liability theories of recovery, for the harm caused by the firearms they manufacture, sell, or distribute.1 The gist of the complaint is that *417appellees2 have manufactured, marketed, and distributed their firearms in ways that ensure the widespread accessibility of the firearms to prohibited users, including children…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Edgar v. Mite Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982

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

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. Ileto v. Glock Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  5. Cleveland Housing Renewal Project v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010

68 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