Legal Opinion

In re Reglan/Metoclopramide Litigation

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 29, 2013PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

BOWES, J.:

PLIVA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., (“Generic Defendants”) appeal from the November 18, 2011 order overruling their preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to a master complaint filed by Plaintiffs, who are persons allegedly injured after ingesting metoclopram-ide.1 The Generic Defendants assert that all of Plaintiffs’ claims against generic manufacturers of metoclopramide, regardless of the legal theory advanced and without consideration of the applicable state law, are failure-to-warn claims. They continue that all causes of action are…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Johnson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sarah Speed v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
  2. Guvenoz v. Target Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2015
  3. Rehrer v. YoustSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Anand v. Independence Blue CrossDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
  5. POLT v. SANDOZ, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2020

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API