Legal Opinion
Hawkinson v. AH Robins Co., Inc.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided September 18, 1984No. Civ. A. 75-M-714, 80-M-10, 80-M-389, 80-M-442, 80-M-603, 80-M-605, 80-M-766, 80-M-1677, 81-M-209, 81-M-210, 81-M-639 and 81-M-659PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
MATSCH, District Judge.
These twelve civil actions were consolidated for trial to the court because all of the plaintiffs claim that they suffered injuries from the use of the same product, manufactured and marketed by the defendant, the Daikon Shield intrauterine contraceptive device. These claims are brought within the jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the law of Colorado is applicable in all of these cases.
EARLY PRODUCT HISTORY
The Daikon Shield device was designed by the joint efforts of Dr. Hugh James Davis and Mr. Irwin S. Lerner.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- Hiigel v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Colorado · 1976
- Morrison v. GoodspeedSupreme Court of Colorado · 1937
- Union Supply Co. v. PustSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
- Carpenter v. DonohoeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1964
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Carol O'COnnOr v. R.F. Lafferty & Company, Inc. And Roy A. FoulkeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. HeisermanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- People v. YoungMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
- Mile Hi Concrete, Inc. v. MatzSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.