Legal Opinion
In re Baycol Products Litigation
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided September 17, 2003No. MDL No. 1431PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Background
This action involves the prescription drug, Cerivistatin, which was marketed in the United States under the brand name Baycol. Cerivistatin is a member of a class of drug known as statins, that have been routinely prescribed to lower the lipid levels of individuals with high cholesterol, with the goal of decreasing the risk of cardiac diseases. Sta-tins have been available since the late 1980’s and have been widely prescribed.
In June 1997, the FDA approved Baycol in dosages of .02…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- In Re Baycol Cases I & IICalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Grovatt v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- Mulford v. Altria Group, Inc.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2007
- In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- In re Fosamax Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.