Legal Opinion
In Re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation
District Court, N.D. Alabama
Decided December 2, 1993No. CV 92-P-10000-SPublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION and ORDER
(DOW CHEMICAL AND CORNING SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
POINTER, Chief Judge.
Over the last several years thousands of lawsuits against numerous defendants have been filed across the country by persons claiming to have been injured from silicone breast implants. Those cases filed in or removed to other federal courts that have not been earlier resolved or remanded to state court have been, or are in the process of being, transferred to the Northern District of Alabama for pretrial purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Extensive discovery and other pretrial proceedings have been conducted…
2Cases cited37 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
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Ferens v. John Deere Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- BMC Software Belgium, NV v. MarchandTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v. Dow Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
- Artiglio v. Corning Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Adams v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1995
- Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex Corp. (In Re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.