Contents

Talk:Market share liability

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are we using a hyphen in the title?[edit]

The correct spelling is "market share liability." That's the way it's overwhelmingly used in the case law and in the literature. On Google Books, the few sources that use it with a hyphen appear to be from outside the U.S. or written by nonlawyers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the spelling that was used in my sources, which were the Henderson, Pearson, Kysar, and Siliciano casebook and the cited journal articles. All of those were written by lawyers, I assure you. But it does seem that the unhyphenated version is quite common, so if you feel absolutely compelled to change it I understand. Verkhovensky (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran a search via the public LexisNexis search for California published case law (available at courtinfo.ca.gov). Of 30 published cases using the term, only 3 use "market-share liability" and one is clearly quoting from another, so that's really only two. One was the Conte v. Wyeth opinion from 2008 and the other was Justice Werdegar's dissent in Merrill v. Navegar in 2001. Every other decision consistently uses "market share liability." So the hyphen usage is definitely a minority one. I'll change this when I have the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your searches. I somehow found time to make three clicks and move the page myself. Verkhovensky (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]