O'Hara Ex Rel. H.O. v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[N]othing in the Notice of Withdrawal undermines the conclusion, drawn from the text and Final Rule commentary, that FMVSS 205 is a minimum safety standard.”
• stating “some data indicated that advanced glazing might slightly increase the likelihood of minor neck injuries when compared to tempered glass”
• “To determine the federal policy expressed in [the regulation], this Court looks to the text of the regulation, the history of [the agency’s] regulation in this area, and [the agency’s] statements construing [the regulation].”
• Even though a defendant had not moved for summary judgment on particular claims, \[the plaintiffs had] placed these claims at issue by raising them in their ... reply brief to [defendant's] motion for summary judgment ....\
• “When a federal safety standard deliberately leaves manufacturers with a choice among designated design options in order to further a federal policy , a common law rule which would force manufacturers to adopt a particular design option is preempted.” ( emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).