Renfro v. Black
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
Plaintiffs-appellants’ first and third propositions of law are interrelated and will be considered together.
I
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court should have permitted the jury to consider the “timeliness” of a so-called “Dear Doctor” letter dated “November, 1983” that Smith Laboratories sent to Dr. Dwight, and that the trial court should have instructed the jury *29as plaintiffs requested in proposed instruction No. Four.2
Dr. Dwight testified that he periodically received correspondence from Smith Laboratories regarding the drug Chymodiactin. Prior to injecting Yvonne Renfro with Chymodiactin,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bostic v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. GrubbOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- O'Brien v. AngleyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- James A. McKinnon v. Skil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Peters v. Ohio State Lottery CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
- United Oil Co. v. Parts Associates, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2005
- Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2006
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.