Legal Opinion
Schwartz v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 23, 1963PublishedCited by 124 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBubke, J.
The sole issue on this appeal, by leave of this court, is whether an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations was proper. We think it was.
*215In 1944, when plaintiff was in a Naval hospital, a product called “ Umbrathor”, manufactured by defendant, was inserted into plaintiff’s sinuses for the purpose of making them perceptible in X rays. Some of the substance allegedly remained in plaintiff’s head and produced a carcinoma requiring the removal of an eye in 1957. This action was commenced in 1959. Plaintiff…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Pike v. . HonsingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Conklin v. DraperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Comstock v. WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by124 opinions
- John J. Kassner & Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. And Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Shideler v. DwyerIndiana Supreme Court · 1981
- Ackerman v. Price WaterhouseNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
119 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.