Legal Opinion
Fidler v. E. M. Parker Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 12, 1985PublishedCited by 104 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLynch, J.
The plaintiffs brought this action on March 24, 1983, against E. M. Parker Co., Incorporated (Parker), and Lafayette Pharmacal, a division of Alcon Laboratories (Alcon). Deborah Fidler seeks damages for negligence and breach of express and implied warranties for injuries allegedly caused by Pantopaque contrast medium.3 She claims that, as a result of the use of Pantopaque in the course of three myelograms,4 she suffered injury, including severe head, face, and eye pain. Her husband, Donald Fidler, seeks damages for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs brought this action in the Superior Court…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1997
- Mouradian v. General Electric Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
- Martin v. RingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
- Fireside Motors, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Miles v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.