Legal Opinion

In re Pennsylvania Diet Drugs Litigation

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided March 12, 1999No. 9709-3162PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEVIN, J.,

Before this court are plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, defendants’ memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and all responses thereto. Plaintiffs seek certification of a medical monitoring claim on behalf of a class of “all persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have used fenfluramine (sometimes referred to as ‘Pondimin’) and/or dexfenfluramine (sometimes referred to as ‘Redux’).” For the reasons stated below, we grant certification of plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claim on behalf of all persons in the Commonwealth of…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  2. 9 Fair empl.prac.cas. 211, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9931 Sandra Wetzel and Mari Ross, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Equal Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
  3. In Re Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  4. Dolgow v. AndersonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1968
  5. Ayers v. Township of JacksonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Foust v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. In re Welding Fume Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007
  3. Wyeth, Inc. v. GottliebDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API