Broussard v. Procter & Gamble Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding plaintiff’s use of a heating blanket was not reasonably anticipated because she had violated the product’s express warnings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Matthews v. Remington Arms Co., Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 2011-05-18· cited 17×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Exxon Corp. v. Burglin
  Fifth Circuit· 1993-10-18· cited 56×
• United States v. Kenneth Dodd
  Fourth Circuit· 2014-10-29· cited 24×
• prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,067 Ralph Kampen Katherine Kampen v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1997-08-06· cited 12×
• Ralph Kampen Katherine Kampen v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1997-12-03· cited 5×