Legal Opinion
Hogue v. Pfizer, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided September 27, 2012No. Case No. 2:10-cv-805PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff in this diversity action asserts several product liability claims under Ohio law, arguing her ingestion of a prescription drug, metoclopramide, caused her to develop a neurological system disorder known as tardive dyskinesia. The Defendants that manufacture the brand-name version of metoclopramide (“Brand Defendants”), move for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff never ingested brand-name metoclopramide; rather, she ingested only the generic version of metoclopramide. ECF Nos. 70 and 72. For the following reasons, the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Yanise Germain v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, IncCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
- Elward v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2017
- Gardley-Starks v. Pfizer, Inc.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2013
- Gordon v. B. Braun Medical Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2020
- Heide v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2020
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.