1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 564 F.Supp.
  5. 564 F.Supp. 265 (1983)
 

McELHANEY v. ELI LILLY & CO.

Civ. No. 80-3069.

564 F.Supp. 265 (1983)

Patricia McELHANEY, Plaintiff, v. ELI LILLY & CO., An Indiana Corporation; Abbott Laboratories, An Illinois Corporation; Merck & Co., Inc., A New Jersey Corporation; Miles Labs, An Indiana Corporation; Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., A New Jersey Corporation; Parke Davis & Co., A Michigan Corporation; Rexall Drug Co., A Delaware Corporation; E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; Upjohn Company, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; Schering Corporation; and McNeil Laboratories, Inc., being sued separately and as representatives of the class of similarly situated drug manufacturers, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, C.D.

May 16, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles Rick Johnson, Johnson, Eklund & Davis, Gregory, S.D., for plaintiff.

Harold C. Doyle, May, Johnson, Doyle & Becker, Sioux Falls, S.D., for defendant Rexall Drug Co.

William Taylor, Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, Sioux Falls, S.D., for defendant Eli Lilly Co.

W.A. Hackett, Austin, Hinderaker & Hackett, Watertown, S.D., and Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel, Santa Monica, Cal., for defendant E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.

William F. Day, Jr., Day, Grossenburg & Whiting, Winner, S.D., for defendant Schering Corp.

Chester A. Groseclose, Jr., Aberdeen, S.D., for defendant Upjohn Co.

Carleton R. Hoy, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, S.D., and Hugh L. Moore, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Abbott Laboratories.

David A. Gerdes, May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson, Pierre, S.D., for defendant McNeil Laboratories.

Gene N. Lebrun, Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, Rapid City, S.D., for defendant Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck, Sharpe & Dohme.

Robert C. Riter, Jr., Riter, Mayer, Hofer & Riter, Pierre, S.D., for defendant Parke Davis & Co.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DONALD J. PORTER, District Judge.

Plaintiff initiated this diversity action (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332) seeking damages because of her vaginal and cervical adenosis, allegedly caused by her exposure to diethystilbesterol (DES). She admittedly cannot identify the manufacturer of the DES she alleges caused her condition. Defendants have now filed a joint motion contending that each are entitled to summary judgment in light of plaintiff's inability...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases