Sheffield v. Eli Lilly & Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SIMS, J. *
Plaintiffs, daughter and mother, have appealed from separate judgments entered in favor of five pharmaceutical manufacturers after the court granted the latter’s motions for summary judgment.
On October 20, 1975, plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking special, general and punitive damages for permanent disability suffered by plaintiff daughter, allegedly proximately resulting from injection with defective Salk vaccine in the fall of 1956 and spring of 1957 when she was a school girl in Indiana. The complaint, as amended November 20, 1975, set forth causes of action sounding…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Clarence Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Nationalsurety Corporation, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Ybarra v. SpangardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Summers v. TiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Zafft v. Eli Lilly & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984
- Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1990
- Shackil v. Lederle LaboratoriesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
- Hamilton v. Accu-TekDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1996
- Paper Savers, Inc. v. NacsaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.