Evelyn Rosa v. Taser International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under California law, the plaintiff did not prove that Taser should have known the use of its product on suspects undergoing metabolic acidosis could result in death
• stating that federal courts 5 may consider only facts that would be admissible in evidence when ruling on summary 6 judgment motions
• stating 17 elements of strict liability failure to warn claim under California law
• holding similarly at summary judgment
• “In examining whether summary 10 judgment is appropriate, we ‘consider only alleged facts that would be admissible in evidence’” 11 (quoting Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 1983))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).