Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. Optical Radiation Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 29, 1996No. B089213PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MASTERSON, J.
In July 1991, plaintiff Winifred Armstrong underwent cataract surgery. Defendant Optical Radiation Corporation (ORC) manufactured a product used during the surgery. In July 1992, Armstrong filed suit against ORC, alleging that its product had caused severe damage to her eye. She asserted causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. ORC moved for summary judgment on the ground that all of Armstrong’s claims were preempted by federal law. The trial court granted the motion. We reverse.
Background
In January 1991, Armstrong consulted with Dr.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Carlin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Charlotte Kennedy and Robert L. Kennedy v. Collagen CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Hufft v. HorowitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Barbara MITCHELL and Gregory Mitchell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLLAGEN CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Baird v. American Medical OpticsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
- Worthy v. Collagen Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.