Legal Opinion

Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided September 1, 1988No. Civ. 3-85-1599PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RENNER, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the design defect issue. In essence, defendant requests this Court to reconsider its February 1, 1988 Order holding that the factfinder must determine the applicability of comment k to § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts on a case-by-case basis. 1 Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co., 680 F.Supp. 1293, 1300-1301 (D.Minn.1988). Defendant, citing Brown v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1049, 245 Cal.Rptr. 412, 751 P.2d 470 (1988), would have this Court hold that comment k applies to all…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  3. McCormack v. Hankscraft CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  4. Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1988

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Davis v. Actavis, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2020
  2. In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API