Legal Opinion

Tate v. Eli Lilly & Co.

District Court, M.D. Tennessee

Decided September 18, 1981No. 80-3762PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

WISEMAN, District Judge.

This is a diversity case in which plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from her in útero exposure to the drug diethylstilbestrol, commonly known as “DES.” Defendant Merck & Co., Inc., has filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. It maintains that the ten-year “cap” on products liability cases contained in section 3 of the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978 [the Act], codified at T.C.A. § 29-28-103(a) (1980), bars plaintiff’s right of action. Plaintiff argues that the ten-year cap is inapplicable…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Teeters v. CurreyTennessee Supreme Court · 1974
  2. McCroskey v. Bryant Air Conditioning CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Shousha v. Matthews Drivurself Service, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Morris v. GrossTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Parlato Ex Rel. Parlato v. HoweDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1979

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mark Wayne v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
  2. Jennifer Kay Brumit Mathis and Her Husband, Barry L. Mathis, Plaintiffs v. Eli Lilly and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  3. Holt v. Hypro, A Division of Lear Siegler, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
  4. Jennifer Amanda Holt v. HyproCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API