Legal Opinion
Hoeflich v. William S. Merrell Company
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 28, 1968No. Civ. A. 40740PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
TROUTMAN, District Judge.
This is an action for personal injuries allegedly resulting from the ingestion of a prescription drug manufactured by defendants and known as MER/29. The personal injuries attributed to the drug by the plaintiff are skin eruptions and injuries to his eyes and nervous system. Presently before the Court for disposition is the motion of the defendants filed pursuant to Rule 56 of the F.R.Civ.P. for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Since this Court’s jurisdiction over this action is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Smith v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Ayers v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Schaffer v. LarzelereSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Forest Grove Brick Works, Inc. v. StricklandOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Dorothy Williams v. Borden, Inc., and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981
- Grigsby v. Sterling Drug, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1975
- Raymond v. Eli Lilly & Co.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1976
- Foodtown v. Sigma Marketing Systems, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1981
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.