Getz v. Boeing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a contractor establishes this defense where “(1) the government exercised its discretion and approved certain warnings; (2) the contractor provided the warnings required by the government; [and] (3) the contractor warned the government about dangers in the equipment’s use that were known to the contractor but not to the government.” In other words, “the contractor must demonstrate that the government “approved reasonably precise specifications” thereby limiting the contractor’s “ability to comply with [its] duty to warn.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Determan v. Boeing Co. · 922 F. Supp. 2d 1113 - Cabalce v. VSE Corp.

2. “(1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard & Associates, Inc. · Determan v. Boeing Co.

3. “stating that continuing to operate in brownout conditions for more than 60 seconds 'may lead to an uncommanded engine shutdown due to excessive sand ingestion into the engine causing a compressor stall,' " [Defs.' CSOF at ¶ 38; Pltfs.' CSOF at ¶ 38]. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the first element of the Getz modified Boyle analysis. Defendants have met their burden as to the first element because the government exercised its discretion and gave the only warnings regarding the V-22 in the V-22 NATOPS Manual. II. Conformity with Reasonably Precise Specifications A. Design/Manufacturing Claims As to the second Boyle element, the Ninth Circuit has held that: [T]he operative test for conformity with reasonably precise specifications turns on whether "the alleged defect ... exist[ed] independently of the design itself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Determan v. Boeing Co.