Legal Opinion

McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co.

District Court, D. South Dakota

Decided November 25, 1983No. Civ. 80-3069PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DONALD J. PORTER, District Judge.

Plaintiff Patricia Smith McElhaney is a “DES Daughter”; she was exposed to the prescription drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) in útero in 1949. She now complains of injuries allegedly caused by such prenatal exposure. 1 Defendant Eli Lilly & Co. admits that it manufactured and marketed the DES which plaintiff’s mother ingested in 1949. 2 Plaintiff’s cause of action is based solely on strict liability in tort. She contends that defendant’s DES, as marketed in 1949, was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition to the consumer. Defendant…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Wyeth Laboratories v. ReyesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Reyes v. Wyeth LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  3. Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In re Accutane Litig.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2018
  2. Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2004
  3. In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2002
  4. Jacobs v. Dista Products Co.District Court, D. Wyoming · 1988
  5. Patricia McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co., Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984

4 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