Legal Opinion
Doe v. Bayer Corp.
District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Decided March 25, 2005No. 1:03 CV 00727PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
OSTEEN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Michael and Cynthia Doe, individually and as Guardians Ad Litem of Minor Child Doe (collectively, “Does”), bring this diversity action against Defendant Bayer Corporation (“Bayer”). 1 Plaintiffs assert several state-law causes of action against Defendant arising out of personal injuries to Minor Child Doe, allegedly caused by in útero exposure to thimerosal.
Defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have not exhausted them…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Quackenbush v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1991
- Adams v. BainCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
- Shalala v. WhitecottonSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Barker v. MeadorDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2021
- Bellamy v. GeiseDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2022
- CKC Properties, LLC v. The Town of Mount Pleasant, South CarolinaDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2024
- GOOSE CREEK PHYSICAL MEDICINE, LLC v. KennedyDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2025
- John Doe 197 v. Bishop of Charleston, TheDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2022
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.