Vinciguerra v. Bayer Cropscience Inc.
130 A.3d 1283
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
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[?]”
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.