Legal Opinion
Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided February 27, 1995No. 1:94 CV 0489PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ANN ALDRICH, District Judge.
On September 22, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a motion (Doc. # 117) that this action be maintained as a class action. For the reasons stated below, this Court hereby denies plaintiffs’ motion.
I
This action is brought by a number of women who claim they have suffered damage to their reproductive systems due to their exposure in útero to diethylstilbestrol (DES) between 1949 and 1962. The plaintiffs assert that each of the numerous defendants is either a manufacturer of DES, a distributor of DES, or a parent or successor corporation to a manufacturer or distributor…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- 12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 451, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,741 John Senter, Cross-Appellee v. General Motors Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
- Woodrow Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation Mdl No. 381Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- William Barnes v. The American Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Philip Morris Inc. v. AngelettiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Ford v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1997
- Krogman v. SterrittDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2001
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.