Vinciguerra v. Bayer Cropscience Inc.

130 A.3d 1283
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 1, 2016
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 A.3d 1283 (Vinciguerra v. Bayer Cropscience Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vinciguerra v. Bayer Cropscience Inc., 130 A.3d 1283 (Pa. 2016).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether, under the Court’s recent decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. [628 Pa. 296], 104 A.3d 328 (Pa.2014), a defendant in a strict-liability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]”
Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wilson, K. v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 A.3d 1283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinciguerra-v-bayer-cropscience-inc-pa-2016.