Legal Opinion
Webster v. Pacesetter, Inc.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided April 16, 2003No. CIV.A. 01-0928(ESH)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HUVELLE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Arnold and Irene Webster have brought this products Lability suit to recover damages from injuries suffered by Arnold Webster after heart surgery implanting a pacemaker system produced by defendant Pacesetter, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that the atrial lead of the pacemaker system is defective and caused the perforation of the wall of the atrial chamber of Arnold Webster’s heart. As a result, plaintiffs have sued alleging strict liability, negligent design, breach of warranty, and fraud and deceit. Defendant now moves for summary judgment…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Washington Post Company v. U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re Baycol Products LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2007
- Webster v. Pacesetter, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Services, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Kubicki ex rel. Kubicki v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Gresser v. Dow Chemical Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.