Cases

MEMORANDUM, ORDER AND JUDGMENT ON RECONSIDERATION JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the court’s May 21, 2009 grant of summary judgment to defendant Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”). Argument on the motion was heard on July 7, 2009. Plaintiffs claims against Lilly include negligence, strict products liability, failure to warn,

JUSTICE CLARK, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that the appellate court should not have adopted the theory of market share liability set forth by the Washington Supreme Court in Martin v. Abbott Laboratories (1984), 102 Wash. 2d 581, 689 P.2d 368.

173 Ill. App.3d 1 (1988) 527 N.E.2d 333 SANDRA SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees (Penick Corporation et al., Defendants and Cross-Appellees). Nos. 85-0633, 85-0880 cons. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (1st Division). Opinion filed May 25, 1988. <

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM C. BRYSON, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant Eli Lilly & Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment That the Claims of the T24 Patent Are Anticipated (“Lilly’s Anticipation Motion”), Dkt. No. 172; (2) Defendant Eli Lilly & Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness (“Lilly’s Indefiniteness Motion”), Dk

*906MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Xanodyne”) has filed three consolidated motions to dismiss in this multidistrict litigation. [MDL Record Nos. 444, 639, 666] It has also filed a motion to dismiss in an individual case,

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Raymond Rodriguez challenges summary judgment for Eli Lilly. The district court found that Eli Lilly did not retaliate against Rodriguez under the Federal Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) when it terminated Rodriguez. It also found that his termination was not discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Because Rodriguez canno

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, & JUDGMENT WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. Table of Contents I.Introduction. A. History of Litigation. B. Some General Considerations. 1. Preemption. 2. Benefits and Roles of Others Reducing Damages 3. Protections Available to Plaintiffs Through Sources Such as Available Experts’ In

308 F.Supp.2d 18 (2004) Danny TARDY and Diane Tardy, individually and as personal representatives of the estate of Michael Tardy, Deceased, Plaintiffs v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al., Defendants No. CIV.04-11-P-H. United States District Court, D. Maine. March 18, 2004. *19 C. Donald Briggs, III, Briggs & Counsel, Rockport, M

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs, Paula Renfroe and Marsha Smith, brought this action in federal district court in Missouri to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of their in útero exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES). All but one of the defendant drug companies joined in a motion for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiffs’ causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitatio

926 S.W.2d 449 (1996) Hon. John W. POTTER, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, Appellant, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Dista Products Company, Joyce Fentress, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Kenneth Fentress, Roma Jean Barger, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Richard Owen Barger, Sr., Angela Bowman, Douglas Bowman, Michael P. Campbell, Forrest Conrad, Saundra Conrad, Linda Ganote, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate

ORDER ON RELATOR'S MOTION TO VACATE AND TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WRIT This matter arises out of a claim that the anti-depressant drug Prozac, manufactured by Relator Eli Lilly and Company, caused Michael Hays Biffle to commit suicide. The Biffles, plaintiffs in the underlying suit and real parties in interest in this cause, sought production of documents submitted by Lilly to the federal Food and Drug Administration, including reports of possible adverse reactions to th

868 S.W.2d 806 (1993) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and Dista Products Company, a Division of Eli Lilly and Company, Appellants, v. Jackie Lynn BIFFLE, Individually and as Next Friend of Jolie Lynn Biffle, a minor, and on behalf of the Estate of Michael Hays Biffle, Deceased; and Michelle Selette Biffle, Appellees. No. 05-92-00487-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. August 19, 1993.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2574 MONICA RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY and LILLY USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Ap

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2574 MONICA RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY and LILLY USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Ap

*161DOGGETT, Justice, dissenting. Once again the majority has intervened in an ongoing trial court proceeding to rewrite Texas law. This time the special treatment accorded in creating a previously unknown discovery privilege threatens the public health and safety by posing formidable obstacles to the search for truth in pharmaceutical and medical device

In this products liability suit, plaintiffs requested discovery of documents relating to the drug Prozac. Defendants filed a motion with the trial court seeking an order limiting the disclosure of certain of these documents under Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, based upon a claim of trade secret. At the hearing on the motion, the application of Rule 76a to trade secrets was disputed, and the trial court declined to consider the merits of this claim. Although the

408 Mass. 204 (1990) 557 N.E.2d 739 ALICE BOWEN vs. ELI LILLY & CO., INC. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester. April 2, 1990. August 6, 1990. Present: LIACOS, C.J., WILKINS, LYNCH, O'CONNOR, & GREANEY, JJ. John F. Keenan, for the plaintiff. Loretta M. Smith (Marshall Simonds with her)

829 S.W.2d 156 (1991) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and Dista Products Company, a Division of Eli Lilly and Company, Relators, v. The Honorable John MARSHALL, Judge, Respondent. No. D-1827. Supreme Court of Texas. December 4, 1991. Robert G. Hogue, Mark E. Smith, Dallas, Joe C. Freeman, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Wade C. Smith, Dallas, for relators. Paul L. Smith, Dallas, fo

725 F.Supp. 130 (1989) Susan CLARK and Robert Clark, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY, The Abbott Laboratories, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, Burroughs Well-come, Co., Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceuticals Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Bio Research Services, Inc., Flint Laboratories, a subsidiary of Baxter-Travenol Laboratories, Inc., Boyle & Co., McNeilab, Inc., and Rexall Corporation, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief Judge. In this pharmaceutical products liability action, Plaintiff Dana Fields alleges that her use of Prozac® during her pregnancy in the mid-1990s caused her son, D.F., to be bom with a congenital heart defect. She brings this action both individually and as the natural parent of D.F., seeking monetary recovery on various state-law claim