Legal Opinion

Hassett v. Dafoe

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 29, 2013PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

BOWES, J.:

PLIVA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., (“Generic Defendants”) appeal from November 18, 2011 order overruling their preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to a master complaint filed by Paul E. Hassett, who was allegedly injured after ingesting metoclopramide.1 The Generic Defendants assert that all of Mr. Hassett’s claims against generic manufacturers of metoclopramide, regardless of the legal theory advanced and without consideration of the state law applicable, *206are failure-to-warn claims. They continue that all causes of action are indistinguishable…

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 by13 opinions

  1. Sarah Speed v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
  2. Theresa Huck v. Wyeth, Inc. D/B/A Wyeth Schwarz Pharma, Inc. and Pliva, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2014
  3. Collier, J. v. National Penn BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Guvenoz v. Target Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2015
  5. Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2014

8 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