Legal Opinion
Symens v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
District Court, D. South Dakota
Decided December 15, 1997No. Civ. 94-1036PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
KORNMANN, District Judge.
BACKGROUND
[¶ 1] Plaintiffs are engaged in the feedlot business near Claremont, Marshall County, South Dakota. Beginning in July of 1992, and continuing until December of 1992, plaintiffs injected their cattle with the vaccine Bovishield 4 which was manufactured, tested and marketed by defendant. Plaintiffs contend that, despite vaccination, plaintiffs’ cattle and cattle belonging to others which cattle were in plaintiffs’ feedlot, contracted a disease resulting in weight loss or death. Plaintiffs instituted this diversity action,…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stanton v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., Inc.District Court, D. South Dakota · 1999
- Big Stone Broadcasting, Inc. v. LindbloomDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2001
- Sjovall v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.District Court, D. South Dakota · 1997
- BMO Bank N.A. v. Lala Trucking IncDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025
- Connelly v. Dependable Sanitation, Inc.District Court, D. South Dakota · 2021
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.