Harry E. STETSER, Dale E. Nelson, and Michael de Montbrun, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC.; Abbott Laboratories; Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.; Johnson & Johnson; Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.; Indigo Laser Corporation; David Jett; Christopher Coleman; Scott Hidalgo; and Eddy James Hack, Defendants.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 6, 2004.
July 6, 2004.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
The Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C., by Marvin K. Blount, Jr., Greenville, and Marvin K. Blount, III, and Kline & Specter, P.C., by Donald E. Haviland, Jr., pro hac vice, and TerriAnne Benedetto, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff-appellees.
Smith Moore LLP, by J. Donald Cowan, Jr. and Shannon R. Joseph, and Jones Day, by Daniel E. Reidy, pro hac vice, Greensboro, for defendant-appellant TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge, & Rice, PLLC, by Pressly M. Millen, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant Abbott Laboratories.
Alston & Bird, LLP, by George O. Winborne, John J. Barnhardt, III, Charlotte, and Lance A. Lawson, and Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP, by William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., pro hac vice, New York, NY, for defendant-appellants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
Stubbs & Perdue, P.A., by George Mason Oliver and Trawick H. Stubbs, Jr., New Bern, for defendant-appellee Scott Hidalgo.
Gary S. Parsons, Raleigh, for the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.
Philip R. Isley, Daniel J. Popeo, pro hac vice, Richard A. Samp, pro hac vice, and George M. Teague, Raleigh, for Washington Legal Foundation and North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, amicus curiae.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Defendants TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. (TAP), Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), Johnson & Johnson (Johnson) and Ethicon Endo-Surgery (Ethicon) appeal from the trial court's order certifying plaintiffs' class action lawsuit against defendants. Defendant TAP also appeals a separate order denying its motion to amend its answer to add a crossclaim.
I. Facts
Plaintiffs Harry...
Let's get started
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.
