Frew v. Bowers

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, as in design defect cases, “when the government exercises its discretion and approves warnings intended for users, it has an interest in insulating its contractors from state failure to warn liability”
• \Only when the government performed its discretionary function would state tort law liability frustrate a federal interest.\
• “Only when the government performed its discretionary function would state tort law liability frustrate a federal interest.”
• “[W]here the government goes beyond approval and actually determines for itself the warnings to be provided, the contractor has surely” demonstrated that “the government exercised its discretion”
• “Where a contractor proposes warnings that the government substantively approves, and satisfies the second and third conditions, the defense displaces state law—even if the government did not ‘prohibit’ the contractor from proposing more alarming warnings.”
• United States Army closely scrutinized the defendants’ development of the product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).