Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Eli Lilly & Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 18, 1991PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*798OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, whose wife allegedly suffered certain injuries to her reproductive system due to her in útero exposure to the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES), commenced this action against defendants, several manufacturers of DES, asserting a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium. Prior to trial, defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff could not recover for loss of consortium since his wife’s exposure to DES and her resultant injuries occurred before the marriage.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Rademacher v. TorbensenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Briggs v. Julia L. Butterfield Memorial HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Mehtani v. New York Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. CookCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- OKRAYAENTS v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- In Re New York Asbestos LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- Consorti v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Doe v. CherwitzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.