Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Atterbury

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)

Decided September 9, 1998No. 06-97-00099-CVPublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*186OPINION

ROSS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of four plaintiffs in a products liability and negligence ease involving silicone gel breast implants. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), the defendant, appeals this judgment. We reverse and render judgment for 3M.

For a period of time in the late 1970’s and 1980’s, 3M manufactured silicone gel breast implants and distributed them to plastic surgeons. Specifically, MeGhan was formed in 1973 to produce medical implants, and 3M bought MeGhan in 1977. 3M’s implants came with package inserts that warned, among other…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  3. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. HavnerTexas Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Maritime Overseas Corp. v. EllisTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  5. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc. v. Anderson, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2002
  2. Meister, Brenda G. v. Medical EngineeringCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
  3. Exxon Corp. v. Makofski Ex Rel. Makofski, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
  4. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Navarro, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2002
  5. Interceramic, Inc. v. South Orient RR Co., Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)1999

36 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