Maness v. Boston Scientific

How courts have described this case

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

• identifying “strict liability, defective design, defective manufacturing, [and] failure to warn]” as the theories of recovery in a Tennessee products liability suit
• applying Tennessee law, holding that plaintiff must allege facts from which the court can infer the device was defective and the injuries were caused by the defective condition
• applying Tennessee law, holding that plaintiff must allege facts from which the court can infer the device was defective and the injuries were caused by the defective condition
• applying Tennessee law, holding that plaintiff must allege facts from which the court can infer the device was defective and the injuries were caused by the defective condition
• applying Tennessee law, holding that plaintiff must allege facts from which the court can infer the device was defective and the injuries were caused by the defective condition
• applying Tennessee law, holding that plaintiff must allege facts from which the court can infer the device was defective and the injuries were caused by the defective condition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).