Legal Opinion
Boaz v. Boyle & Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 21, 1995No. B076776PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, J.
The grandmothers of the plaintiff-appellants in this case ingested the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) while pregnant with appellants’ mothers. It is claimed that, as a result of the ingestion, appellants’ mothers suffered disabilities that manifested themselves at various points after birth and that their children (appellants) suffered similar injuries when they were bom. All but one of the appellants is a resident of the state of New York or New Jersey. The DES ingestion occurred in the state of New York. All of them pursued actions against defendant-respondents in that…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. SchmidtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Hahn v. Diaz-BarbaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Hamilton v. Accu-TekDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1998
- American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 2001
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.