Legal Opinion

prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 10,668 Mary McMahon and Cross-Appellees v. Eli Lilly and Company, and Cross-Appellant

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided October 9, 1985No. 84-2721, 84-2896PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEIGEL, Senior District Judge.

In proceedings below, plaintiffs Mary McMahon and her husband Francis sued in their individual capacities and as representatives of their deceased son. They claimed that the Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), a pharmaceutical manufacturer, failed to warn adequately of the dangerous propen sities of diethylstilbestrol (DES). 1 This failure to warn, plaintiffs claimed, rendered DES an unreasonably dangerous product, so that Lilly should be held strictly liable for injuries allegedly caused by the drug.

Mrs. McMahon has found it difficult to achieve full-term…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Williams v. Brown Manufacturing Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Richard Leander Ferebee, Jr. v. Chevron Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
  4. Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Lawson v. G. D. Searle & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Billie Williams v. Jader Fuel Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  2. Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. In the Matter of Innovative Construction Systems, Inc., Debtor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
  4. Proctor v. DavisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1997
  5. Frank Daniels, Cross-Appellant v. Pipefitters' Association Local Union No. 597, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991

37 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