Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry Co. v. Yocum's Admr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a choice of law analysis is not required when the laws of jurisdictions are identical or would produce identical results
• relying on McGrath v. Gen. Motors Corp., 26 Fed.Appx. 506, 510 (6th Cir.2002) (“[Plaintifffs argument that he is not required to provide such evidence is therefore without merit.”)
• finding genuine issue of fact where physician had changed his practice since new warnings were provided, now warns patients of the newly-added risk, and reduces the frequency of dosage for some patients
• “[W]here the treating physician unequivocally testifies that s/he would have prescribed the subject drug despite adequate warnings, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate.”
• “Although this subsection does not state that it is a plaintiffs burden to prove an alternative design, the Sixth Circuit has so held.” (citing McGrath v. Gen. Motors Corp., 26 Fed.Appx. 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2002)
• “Although this subsection does not state that it is a plaintiffs burden to an alternative design, the Sixth Circuit has so held.” (citing McGrath v. Gen. Motors Corp., 26 Fed.Appx. 506, 510 (6th Cir.2002

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).