State v. Ammann

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that allegations gun manufacturers’ oversaturated market with firearms unreasonably interfered with public health and safety satisfactorily alleged a public nuisance under the Restatement (Second) of Torts
• indicating that to 2 succeed on a claim for negligence, a plaintiff “must establish four required elements: (1) duty; (2) 3 breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages”
• holding gun manufacturers liable because they were “in the best position to protect against the risk of harm” caused by the purchase of illegal guns from all of the different sellers to whom they distributed
• finding that it was reasonably foreseeable that if defendants continued to foster the illegal secondary firearms market, a third party who was prohibited by law from purchasing a gun would be able to purchase one and use it in a criminal manner
• explaining that proximate cause is “generally a question of fact” unless the facts are undisputed and only one inference can “reasonably be drawn from those facts” (quoting Garman v. Magic Chef, Inc., 173 Cal. Rptr. 20, 22 (Ct. App. 1981))
• requiring Rule 12(b)(6) to “be read in conjunction with Rule 2 8,” which requires a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).