Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 28, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Casey, J. P.
Plaintiff Carol Anderson (hereinafter plaintiff) alleges that her exposure to the drug diethylstilbestrol (hereinafter DES) while she was in útero caused certain abnormalities in her reproductive system which prevented her from giving birth to a healthy child and ultimately resulted in a radical hysterectomy, which has left her infertile. Asserting causes of action based upon, inter alia, negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability, plaintiff commenced this action for damages against a number of defendants that manufactured and marketed DES…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Bichler v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Albala v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Rademacher v. TorbensenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Anderson v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Santoro Ex Rel. Santoro v. DonnellyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- In re New York County Des LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1992