Legal Opinion
Murphy v. SmithKline Beecham Animal Health Group
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided September 21, 1995No. Civ. A. 95-1002-DESPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SAFFELS, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13).
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, Roger Murphy (“Murphy”), is a resident of the state of Kansas engaged in the cattle feeding business. The defendant; SmithKline Beecham Corporation (“SmithKline”), is a Pennsylvania corporation, and is the successor-in-interest to SmithKline Beecham Animal Health Products, Adams Veterinary Research, Inc., Nor-den Laboratories, Inc., and Beecham, Inc.
Murphy alleges that from on or about October 1993, until about January 1994, he…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCCSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,330 Richard Symens Joyce Symens v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Ivan Sjovall v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Lynnbrook Farms v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Brandt v. Marshall Animal ClinicCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Garrelts v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1996
- Cooper v. United Vaccines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.