Legal Opinion
Fleishman v. Lilly
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 12, 1984PublishedCited by 42 opinions
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
1Opinion of the Court
*890OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed, with costs.
There is no showing in the record in either case of sufficient legal significance to warrant departure from our prior decisions. (Matter of Steinhardt v Johns-Manville Corp., 54 NY2d 1008, remittitur amd 55 NY2d 802, app dsmd cert den 456 US 967; Thornton v Roosevelt Hosp., 47 NY2d 780; Schwartz v Heyden Newport Chem. Corp., 12 NY2d 212, remittitur amd 12 NY2d 1073, cert den 374 US 808; Schmidt v Merchants Desp. Transp. Co., 270 NY 287, rearg den 271 NY 531.) We most recently…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- People v. HobsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Bing v. ThunigNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Woods v. LancetNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v. Interstate Wrecking Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1984
- Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Cavanaugh v. Abbott LaboratoriesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1985
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.