Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Davidson v. Wyeth”
Pamela Kuhn v. Wyeth, Inc.public domain
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Pamela Kuhn and Shirley Davidson were prescribed Prempro, a hormone therapy drug comprised of estrogen and progestin and manufactured by Wyeth.1 Kuhn took Prempro for three years and twenty-eight days; Davidson took it for one year and nine months. Both women developed breast cancer and filed separate lawsuits against Wyeth in the Western District of Arkansas. The complain
Kuhn v. Wyeth, Inc.public domain
ORDER JOE J. VOLPE, United States Magistrate Judge. Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Any Expert Testimony that Prempro Use Increases Breast Cancer Risk When Taken for Only Three Years or Less (Doc. Nos. 36, 38, 40). Plaintiffs have responded 1 and Defendants have replied.2 Hearings were held on Monday, November 29, 2010, and
Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.public domain
ORDER GRANTING GENERIC DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS S. THOMAS ANDERSON, District Judge. Seven cases involving Defendant Wyeth LLC (“Wyeth”) and other pharmaceutical companies identified later in this Order are currently pending before the Court. These cases revolve around Plaintiffs’ injuries arising from their ingestion of the brand name drug Reglan or its generic version, metoclopramide. The Court will d
Constant v. Wyethpublic domain
352 F.Supp.2d 847 (2003) Kimberly CONSTANT, Plaintiff, v. WYETH; Wyeth, Inc.; American Home Products Corporation; A.H. Robins Company, Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f/k/a Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc.; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, f/k/a Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories; and James W. Johnson, M.D.; Defendants. No. CIV. 3:03-0052. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.
Moore v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR CO. GROUPpublic domain
241 P.3d 808 (2010) Karen MOORE and the Estate of Johnny C. Moore, Appellants, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, INC. d/b/a/ Harley-Davidson Motor Company, a Wisconsin State Corporation; Destination Motorcycles Tacoma, LLC d/b/a Destination Harley-Davidson, a Washington State Limited Liability Company, Respondents. No. 39400-6-II. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.
Moore v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group, Inc.public domain
Van Deren, J. ¶1 Karen Moore and the estate of her deceased husband, Johnny C. Moore (Moores),1 sued Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group Inc. and Destination Motorcycles Tacoma LLC (collectively Harley-Davidson) for Washington products liability act2 (WPLA), ch. 7.72 RCW, violations. In pretrial motions, the trial court ruled that the Moores’ expert’s testimony based on me
Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratoriespublic domain
WISDOM, Circuit Judge: This products liability case raises significant questions concerning the scope of a drug manufacturer’s duty to warn ultimate consumers of dangers inherent in his product. In May 1970, slightly more than two weeks after she had received a dose of Wyeth Laboratories’ oral polio vaccine, eight-month-old Anita Reyes was diagnosed as having paralytic poliomyelitis. Epifanio Reyes, An
Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratoriespublic domain
498 F.2d 1264 Epifanio REYES, Individually and as next Friend of AnitaReyes, a minor, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.WYETH LABORATORIES, a Division of American Home ProductsCorporation, aDelaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 72-2251. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. July 31, 1974. Loyd E. Bing
Blackmon v. American Home Products Corp.public domain
328 F.Supp.2d 647 (2004) Jay BLACKMON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION d/b/a/ Wyeth, Inc., et al., Defendant. No. G-02-179. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. June 2, 2004. *648 *649 Peter Andersen Moir, Quilling Selander et al., C. Andrew W
Eric O. Carter v. Howard Gentrypublic domain
04/26/2024 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 1, 2024 ERIC O. CARTER v. HOWARD GENTRY, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 23-0648-IV-I Patricia Head Moskal, Chancellor
05/21/2025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2024 Session THE CHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY V. DIVISION OF TENNCARE, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 21-1150-II Anne C. Martin, Chancellor No
Kansas Judicial Review v. Stoutpublic domain
562 F.3d 1240 (2009) KANSAS JUDICIAL REVIEW; the Honorable Charles M. Hart; the Honorable Robb Rumsey, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mikel L. STOUT, in his official capacity as a Member of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Jennifer L. Jones, in her official capacity as a Member of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Nancy Anstaett, in her official capacity as a Member of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications; P
Blackmon v. American Home Products Corp.public domain
346 F.Supp.2d 907 (2004) Jay BLACKMON and Kendel Blackmon, Individually and as Next Friends of Todd Christopher Blackmon et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. G-02-179. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. October 1, 2004. *910 Susan E. Burnett, Clark Tho
County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc.public domain
401 F.Supp.2d 1022 (2005) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASTRA USA, INC., Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Burroughs Wellcome Co., Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., Zeneca, Inc., ZLB Behring LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusi
Kansas Judicial Review v. Stoutpublic domain
519 F.3d 1107 (2008) KANSAS JUDICIAL REVIEW; The Honorable Charles M. Hart; The Honorable Robb Rumsey, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mike L. STOUT, in his official capacity as a Member of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Jennifer L. Jones, in her official capacity as a Member of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Nancy Anstaett, in her official capacity as a Member of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Pa
05/21/2025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2024 Session THE CHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY D/B/A ERLANGER HEALTH SYSTEM V. DIVISION OF TENNCARE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 18-
Reeder v. Hammondpublic domain
125 Mich. App. 223 (1983) 336 N.W.2d 3 REEDER v. HAMMOND Docket No. 60677. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided March 15, 1983. Thomas H. Bleakley, P.C. (by Thomas H. Bleakley), and Gagleard, Munroe, Addis, Imbrunone & Gagleard (by Michael A. Gagleard), of counsel, for plaintiffs. Harvey, Kruse, Westen & M
Roy Franks v. Tiffany Sykespublic domain
05/01/2020 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 6, 2019 Session ROY FRANKS ET AL. v. TIFFANY SYKES ET AL. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-16-171 Kyle Atkins, Judge
Zukowski v. Anne Arundel Cnty.public domain
Mark Zukowski, et al. v. Anne Arundel County, No. 14, September Term, 2024. Opinion by Eaves, J. MD. CODE ANN., LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT § 9-610(a)(1) – STATUTORY OFFSET OF BENEFITS – SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES The Supreme Court of Maryland held that, in calculating an award of attorney’s fees for representing an injured employee under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act, an attorney is entitled to a percentage of the compensation awarded by the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commis
Zukowski v. Anne Arundel Cnty.public domain
Mark Zukowski, et al. v. Anne Arundel County, No. 14, September Term, 2024. Opinion by Eaves, J. MD. CODE ANN., LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT § 9-610(a)(1) – STATUTORY OFFSET OF BENEFITS – SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES The Supreme Court of Maryland held that, in calculating an award of attorney’s fees for representing an injured employee under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act, an attorney is entitled to a percentage of the compensation awarded by the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commis