Marks v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NEWSOM, J.
The present appeal is from judgment following a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor in a products liability action. The product involved is an inflatable mammary prosthesis used in breast augmentation surgery. Following the verdict, the trial court granted a motion notwithstanding the verdict and deleted the jury’s award of $75,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff appeals, seeking reversal of the judgment regarding punitive damages. Defendants cross-appeal, urging that the award of compensatory damages be reversed.
A brief summary of the procedural background reveals the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977
- Gee v. Tenneco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Shannon v. Samuel Langston CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1974
- Kloberdanz v. Joy Manufacturing CompanyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1968
- Moe v. Transamerica Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Darrel Franklin v. USX Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Phillips v. Cooper Laboratories, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Gawara v. United States Brass Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1998
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.