Legal Opinion
Pennwalt Corporation v. Plough, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided April 8, 1982No. 81-2071PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises from Pennwalt Corporation’s unsuccessful effort to obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent Plough, Inc., from running certain advertisements for its foot-care product, Aftate, until after those ads were reviewed by a panel of medical experts pursuant to a court-approved settlement agreement between the parties. It is Pennwalt’s contention that Plough’s ads constitute “efficacy representations” and, hence, are “covered claims” within the meaning of the settlement agreement. Because we have concluded that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Local 862, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Teodore Dorotee Autera v. Manuel Dudley Robinson, Anthony C. Autera v. Manuel Dudley RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
- Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Local Unions 327, 749, 1289, 1298, 1303, 1309 & 1314 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Henry W. Petty v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and Potomac Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
- Kelly v. GreerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1985
- Ehrheart v. Verizon WirelessCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Rothman v. FilletteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Matter of LarsenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.