Legal Opinion
Golod v. Hoffman La Roche
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 20, 1997No. 93 Civ. 0564(RWS)PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant Hoffman La-Roche, Inc. (“Hoffman”) has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.
For the reasons set forth below, Hoffman’s motion will be denied. In addition, certain expert testimony will be excluded at trial.
Parties
Plaintiffs Ann R. Golod (“Golod”) and her husband Ervin H. Golod are individuals residing in New York, New York.
Hoffman is a foreign drug manufacturing company with its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey.
Prior Proceedings
This action was filed on January 29, 1993, seeking damages for Hoffman’s failure to…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
- In re Mirena IUD Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2016
- Butler v. Union Carbide Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2011
- Figueroa v. Boston Scientific Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Davids v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2012
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.