Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining our Supreme Court “has traditionally given broad interpretation to the one-subject requirement, and thereby allowed legislative combinations of matters which, at first blush, might appear quite diverse”
• even though product manufacturer had a continuing duty to warn consumers of product’s dangers, failure to do so was not a continuous wrong
• “[T]his Court has traditionally given broad interpretation to the one-subject requirement, and thereby allowed legislative combinations of matters which, at first blush, might appear quite diverse.”
• “[0]ne of the acknowledged functions of legislation is to change the common law to reflect change of time and circumstances”
• “The Product Liability Act expressly applies to all product liability actions sounding in tort, including those based on the theory of negligence . . . .”
• \or” may be construed to mean \and” to comply with legislative intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).