Case Citator › Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America

Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
717 S.W.2d 588
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
61 of 61
Citing cases (total)
61
Treatment dates
2005
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America is limited in one respect: Gerber v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. held that Alm's general rule sending warning adequacy to the jury does not require a jury decision when a prescription drug warning is adequate as a matter of law. All 61 flagged citations have been read, and this is the one confirmed adverse treatment, listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

61 later cases cite Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America; 61 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • Alm's general rule that a jury decides warning adequacy does not extend to a prescription drug warning found adequate as a matter of law.

    Gerber v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. · S.D. Tex. · filed

    Plaintiff criticizes the line of cases cited by the Court in its May 20 Order and Memorandum and contends that the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in Alm v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 717 S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex.1986), requires that a jury must always decide the issue. The Court agrees *925 that, generally, under Texas law the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact to be determined by a jury. However, the Court in Aim was not presented with an argument that the warning at issue was adequate as a matter of law. Moreover, the prescription drug context of this case resembles the contexts of recent cases from the Fifth Circuit and Texas appellate courts, which have stated that am inadequate warning is not always a jury issue.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace