Skip to main content
· 8/14/2001

Arnold v. Dow Chemical Company

Citations

  • 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 722
  • 91 Cal. App. 4th 698
  • 2001 Daily Journal DAR 8649
  • 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7082
  • 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 639

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • applying 3 privity exception to drugs “on the basis that a drug is intended for human consumption quite as 4 much as is food.”
  • rejecting application of Papike to preempt design defect consumer expectations claim
  • rejecting application of Papike to preempt design defect consumer expectations claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.