Hassett v. Dafoe
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Johnson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- 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
- Sarah Speed v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- Theresa Huck v. Wyeth, Inc. D/B/A Wyeth Schwarz Pharma, Inc. and Pliva, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2014
- Collier, J. v. National Penn BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Guvenoz v. Target Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2015
- Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.