Legal Opinion
Rose v. Fife
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 12, 1989No. Docket Nos. B031622, B037041PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, J.
In this matter we have, on our motion, consolidated the appeal of plaintiff, Polly Rose, with the petition for writ of mandate filed by defendant G.D. Searle & Co. (Searle). This case arose from injuries which plaintiff alleges she sustained by her use of an intrauterine device (IUD) called the “Copper 7.” Searle manufactures the Copper 7. Defendant Doctor J. Kingsley Fife (Fife) prescribed and inserted the Copper 7 for plaintiff. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment in which they contended plaintiff’s suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Sindell v. Abbott LaboratoriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Sanchez v. South Hoover HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Gutierrez v. MofidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- San Francisco Unified School District v. W.R. Grace & Company-ConnecticutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Professional Collection Consultants v. LauronCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Knight v. City of CapitolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.