Legal Opinion

Proctor v. Davis

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided September 26, 1995No. 1—92—3151, 1—92—3513 consPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice DiVITO

Plaintiffs Meyer Proctor and Marjorie Proctor (collectively, plaintiffs) filed this action against The Upjohn Company (Upjohn) and Dr. Michael J. Davis (Davis), alleging injury resulting from Davis’ mistaken injection of the corticosteroid Depo-Medrol, an Upjohn product, directly into Meyer Proctor’s left eye on November 7, 1983. After three unsuccessful surgical attempts to reattach the retina, the eye, which had become blind and painful, was removed. After a five-week trial, a jury found in favor of Davis but against Upjohn, awarding plaintiffs compensatory damages of $3,047,819.76, and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Maple v. GustafsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical CenterIllinois Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Loitz v. Remington Arms Co., Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Schaffner v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Carlin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Proctor v. DavisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1997
  3. Liu v. T & H Machine, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
  4. Roberts & Schaefer Company, a Delaware Corporation v. Merit Contracting, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
  5. Proctor v. Upjohn Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1997

8 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