Legal Opinion

T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

California Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 2017No. S233898PublishedCited by 104 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cuéllar, J.

*154 Under California law, a brand-name drug manufacturer has a duty to warn of known or reasonably knowable adverse effects arising from an individual's use of its drug. (See Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 51 , 65, 107 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 507 P.2d 653 .) In **22 this case, we examine whether-and if so, under what circumstances-a brand-name drug manufacturer may be sued under a theory of "warning label" liability when the *155 warning label for its drug was alleged to be deficient, but the plaintiffs were injured by exposure to a generic bioequivalent drug bearing the brand-name…

2Cases cited68 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  3. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. Dillon v. LeggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968

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

3Cited by104 opinions

  1. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.(In Re S. Cal. Gas Leak Cases)California Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Marroquin v. Pfizer, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2019
  3. Echeverria v. Johnson, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. King v. CompPartners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Fierro v. Landry's Rest. Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

99 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