Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Eleventh Circuit· 7/22/1999

Jennings v. BIC Corporation

Citations

  • 181 F.3d 1250

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance where, among other things, unavailable expert’s testimony would have been duplicative of plaintiff’s other experts
  • almost three years after the complaint was filed, and five months after the deadline for amendments
  • “The defectiveness of a design is determined based on an objective standard, not from the viewpoint of any specific user.”
  • “Under the theory of strict products liability adopted in West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., a product may be defective by virtue of a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or an inadequate warning.” (citations omitted)
  • “[W]e will find reversible error in the refusal to give a requested instruction only if . . . the failure 46 Case: 19-11648 Date Filed: 07/10/2020 Page: 47 of 49 to give the instruction resulted in prejudicial harm to the requesting party.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cox, Barkett, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Jennings v. BIC Corporation

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.