Batiste v. American Home Products Corp.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Judge.
Plaintiff notes in her brief that the claims against defendant Ritchie which were dismissed are interrelated and, therefore, she discusses them together in her brief. We agree that they are sufficiently interrelated to allow single discussion and, accordingly, will follow plaintiff’s format.
Plaintiff first argues that the issuance of a prescription for Ovral by defendant Ritchie to plaintiff constituted a transaction covered by those sections of the Uniform Commercial Code applicable to implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. G.S. 25-2-314 provides:
“(1) Unless…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Carmichael v. ReitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Magrine v. KrasnicaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
- McLeod v. WS Merrell Co., Div. of Richardson-MerrellSupreme Court of Florida · 1965
- Magrine v. SPECTORNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968
- Davis v. RadfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- McKee v. American Home Products Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
- Cottam v. CVS PharmacyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
- Dooley v. EverettCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1990
- Cameron v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.