Maestas v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · HolderHolder, J.
in which ANDERSON, C.J., and BIRCH, and BARKER, JJ., joined.
The plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ products, surgically implanted in then-backs, were defective. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiffs appealed, contending that: 1) genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the “discovery rule”; and 2) under the doctrine of “cross-jurisdictional tolling,” the statute of limitations was tolled during the period in which the plaintiffs sought class…
3Cases cited14 opinions
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Steinberg v. Chicago Medical SchoolIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
- Wade v. Danek Medical, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
- Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by35 opinions
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Norman Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 2012
- In Re Adoption of A.M.H.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2007
- Hatfield v. Halifax PLC & HBOS PLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Stevens v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 2010
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.