Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall
Texas Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CORNYN, Justice.
Today we consider a second mandamus arising out of a products liability suit against the manufacturer of the antidepressant drug Prozac.1 Eli Lilly and Company, the manufacturer, seeks to compel the Honorable John Marshall, Respondent, to set aside his order requiring it to disclose certain information rendered confidential by federal regulation and sanctioning it for its failure to do so. Concluding that the trial court did not apply the proper legal standard, and that appeal is not an adequate remedy, we conditionally grant the writ.
Michael Hays Biffle committed…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Johnson v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1985
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- In Re CSX Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2003
- Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 2017
- In Re CI Host, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
- Eli Lilly and Co. v. Biffle, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1993
- In Re Nolle, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2008
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.