Legal Opinion

In Re Accutane Litigation

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 1, 2014No. 13-754PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEELMAN, Judge.

Where the defendant in a New Jersey mass tort litigation subpoenas a North Carolina witness for a deposition, the North Carolina trial court’s protective order was an interlocutory order. Where the witness failed to allege any substantial right that would be jeopardized absent immediate review, but instead speculates that if certain fact scenarios occur in the future his rights might be implicated, his appeal must be dismissed.

Í. Factual and Procedural Background

In the early 1980s Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., began marketing Accutane, the brand name for the drug isotretinoin, which…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. Alexander v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  4. Goldston v. American Motors Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  5. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint VentureCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hall v. Wilmington HealthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
  2. Hall v. Wilmington HealthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API