Legal Opinion
Rosenfeld v. A. H. Robins Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 3, 1978PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Gulotta, J.
On this appeal we are called upon to interpret the recently enacted class action statute CPLR article 9 (L 1975, ch 207). The underlying action sounds in products liability and involves an intrauterine device (IUD) known as the Daikon Shield. The device was manufactured by defendant, A. H. Robins Co., Inc. (A. H. Robins), between 1970 and 1975. Plaintiff, a former user of the Daikon Shield, alleges that the IUD was defectively designed and that it caused her injury. She further alleges that the defendant breached certain express and implied warranties with…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Randy Knitwear, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1962
- Strauss v. Long Island Sports, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Vincent v. ThompsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- In Re Ah Robins Co., Inc." Dalkon Shield" Liab. Lit.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1975
- Ross v. Amrep Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
3Cited by28 opinions
- In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- In Re Northern District of California, Dalkon Shield Iud Products Liability Litigation.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1984
- Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class ActionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.