Opinion No. Oag 17-90, (1990)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a brand- name manufacturer’s failure to update a warning label was foreseeable
• explaining “gross 7 negligence need not be established conclusively, but the evidence on the issue must be 8 more than slight and may not border on conjecture”
• “If the policy of preventing harm has special relevance to any particular endeavor, surely prescription drug labeling is one.”
• declining to carve an exception to the statutory duty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).