Legal Opinion

Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Company

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1973PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McAllister, j.

Plaintiff brought this action under the Uniform *275Commercial Code against the manufacturer of a contraceptive drug to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the alleged breach of an implied warranty that the drug was fit for the purpose for which it was sold to her. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the two-year tort statute of limitations. Plaintiff appeals from the resulting judgment contending that the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations. We agree with plaintiff…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
  2. MARTIN ET UX v. Reynolds Metals Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Wights v. Staff Jennings, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Gardiner v. Philadelphia Gas WorksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  5. Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1969

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Berry v. G. D. Searle & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  3. Garcia v. Texas Instruments, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Ogle v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Parish v. B F Goodrich Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975

48 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