Legal Opinion

Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided August 6, 1990PublishedCited by 230 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, J.

The defendant argues that the plaintiffs negligence claim is barred because she commenced this action more than three years after her cause of action accrued. G. L. c. 260, § 2A (1988 ed.). A judge in the Superior Court agreed and allowed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We transferred the plaintiff’s appeal here on our own motion and now affirm the judgment.

We summarize the undisputed record facts. During her pregnancy with the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s mother took the prescription drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) to prevent a threatened miscarriage. The plaintiff was born on April…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hendrickson v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  2. White v. Peabody Construction Co., Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  3. Franklin v. AlbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  4. Hoffman v. Howmedica, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  5. Friedman v. JablonskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976

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

3Cited by230 opinions

  1. Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  2. Riley v. PresnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  3. Moll v. Abbott LaboratoriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
  5. Shay v. WaltersCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012

225 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