Legal Opinion
Hartnett v. Schering Corp.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided October 27, 1992No. Civ. L-90-2395PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
LEGG, District Judge.
In this products liability suit, the Court is called upon to decide cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs, Mary and Joseph Hartnett, and by defendant Schering Corporation (“Schering”). Invoking federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship), the Hartnetts seek compensatory and punitive damages from Schering based upon physical injuries that Mary Hartnett allegedly suffered in útero when her mother ingested a synthetic estrogen manufactured by White Laboratories 1 . The complaint advances counts for negligence, breach…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Schering Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Home Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Miller v. Pacific Shore FundingDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 13,643 Mary D. Hartnett Joseph P. Hartnett v. Schering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Benn v. Seventh-Day Adventist ChurchDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2004
- Helinski v. Appleton PapersDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1997
- Vass v. Compaq Computer Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 1997