Legal Opinion
Thoma v. A.H. Robins Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided November 2, 1983No. Civ. A. No. 80-1745PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BROTMAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court are three motions, two by defendant A.H. Robins, and one by plaintiff Marcie Thoma. Defendant makes a motion in limine to exclude evidence that it believes is irrelevant to the present case, a suit for injury allegedly caused by defendant’s Daikon Shield, an intrauterine contraceptive device (“IUD”). Defendant’s other motion asks the court to admit out-of-state counsel pro hac vice. Plaintiff moves to strike defendant’s motion in limine as a sham pleading pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Sanders v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- State v. KAVANAUGHSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1968
- MacNeil v. Hearst CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1958
- Thomas Gray v. Joseph J. Brunetti Construction Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale UniversityConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Kohlmayer v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Mruz v. Caring, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Ageloff v. Noranda, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1996