Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co.

District Court, D. South Dakota

Decided April 8, 1982No. 80-3069PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DONALD J. PORTER, District Judge.

CASE SUMMARY

The plaintiff in this pharmaceutical products liability action has moved for cer*877tification of a plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed class consists of all persons exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in útero who presently reside in South Dakota. For the reasons which follow, plaintiff’s motion for class certification is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Patricia McElhaney alleges that she has developed a pre-cancerous condition as a result of her prenatal exposure to…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Ralston v. Volkswagenwerk, A. G.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1973
  3. Thomas v. ClarkeDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1971
  4. Amswiss International Corp. v. Heublein, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1975
  5. Payton v. Abbott LabsDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1979

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
  2. In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
  4. In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class ActionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
  5. Sun Coast Resources, Inc. v. Cooper, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1998

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API