Legal Opinion
McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co.
District Court, D. South Dakota
Decided May 16, 1983No. Civ. 80-3069PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DONALD J. PORTER, District Judge.
Plaintiff initiated this diversity action (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332) seeking damages because of her vaginal and cervical adenosis, allegedly caused by her exposure to diethys-tilbesterol (DES). She admittedly cannot identify the manufacturer of the DES she alleges caused her condition. Defendants have now filed a joint motion contending that each are entitled to summary judgment in light of plaintiff’s inability to prove that any of them manufactured or sold the DES involved here.
The issue presented is whether, under the particular circumstances…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Summers v. TiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Sindell v. Abbott LaboratoriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1984
- Collins v. Eli Lilly & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
- Martin v. Abbott LaboratoriesWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Northington v. MarinCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1990
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.