Legal Opinion

Griffith v. Blatt

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 2002No. CC 9502-01211; CA A93458; SC S46476PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.

Plaintiff Patricia E. Griffith seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment against plaintiff on her claims against defendants Rugby Laboratories, Inc. (Rugby) and Stout. Griffith v. Blatt, 158 Or App 204, 973 P2d 385 (1999). Plaintiff claimed that she was injured when she used a lotion, Lindane, that her physician had prescribed. Rugby manufactured the lotion and Stout, a pharmacist, filled the prescription. Plaintiff argued that neither her physician nor Stout had warned her that Lindane was toxic if used improperly. The Court of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
  2. McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Oksenholt v. LEDERLE LABORATORIES, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Caplener v. United States National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State Ex Rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. KarlWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  4. Alton v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2013
  5. Doughton v. MorrowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

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

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

Powered by the Exa API