Legal Opinion

Engstrom v. Bayer Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 14, 2004PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

MONTEMURO, J.:

¶ 1 These consolidated appeals lie from orders dismissing with prejudice on the basis of forum non conveniens five complaints against Appellee pharmaceutical company in a mass tort 1 /products liability action. The claim is advanced by Appellants that their ingestion of certain of Ap-pellee’s products, specifically Alka-Seltzer Plus, containing the decongestant ingredient phenylpropanolamine (PPA) caused them to suffer hemorrhagic stroke resulting in permanent and profound physical damage.

¶ 2 Appellants in this matter are citizens of Missouri, Washington state, Arizona…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  4. Commonwealth v. TopaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Bochetto, G. v. Dimeling, Schreiber & ParkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Hovatter, D. v. CSX TransportationSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  3. Jessop v. ACF INDUSTRIES, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Bochetto v. Piper Aircraft Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

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

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

Powered by the Exa API