Bishop & Babcock Manufacturing Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4) was not appropriate, because “individual trials will still be required to determine issues of causation, damages, and applicable defenses.”
• holding that maintenance of interstate order favored the application of the law of the state of plaintiff’s domicile, as the drug in question was prescribed and ingested there, and the alleged injury occurred there
• finding that the absence of recommendations from the medical community regarding the need for a medical monitoring program was fatal to the plaintiffs' claims
• stating that this factor weighs in favor of state with the most significant contacts with facts relevant to the litigation
• applying law of state where injury took place and plaintiffs resided to putative nationwide class asserting negligence claims
• noting twenty years ago 7 that, then, “the Minnesota courts ha[d] not placed any emphasis on the fifth factor for nearly 8 twenty years”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).