Depositors Insurance v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that proof of departure from intended design requires proof of both (1) the intended design of the product, and (2) how the manufacturing of the particular product at issue departed from the intended product design
• concluding, under Iowa law, that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ manufacturing-defect claims where the plaintiffs failed to offer evidence “showing (1) the intended design of [the products] or (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).