Legal Opinion
Spychala v. G.D. Searle & Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided December 21, 1988No. Civ. A. 86-4209 (MTB)PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BARRY, District Judge.
Patricia Spychala brings this action against G.D. Searle & Company (“Searle”) alleging that Searle’s failure to adequately warn her of the risks associated with use of its Copper 7 (“Cu-7”) intrauterine device was a proximate cause of the pelvic inflammatory disease (“PID”) she developed and her subsequent infertility. More specifically, Spychala alleges that the information provided to her by Searle, the manufacturer of the Cu-7 device, was insufficient to allow Spychala to make an informed choice as to whether or not the Cu-7 should be utilized. Searle moves for…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Maryland v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of DetroitSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Michigan Canners & Freezers Assn., Inc. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Bd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Article of Drug . . . Bacto-UnidiskSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Humes v. ClintonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1990
- Edwards v. Basel PharmaceuticalsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
- Harden v. Danek Medical, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.