Tenth Circuit· 5/10/2002

Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.

Citations

289 F.3d 1193
58 Fed. R. Serv. 1299
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9066
2002 WL 963423

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that differential diagnosis expert testimony of a causal connection between a prescription drug (Parlodel
concluding that differential diagnosis expert testimony of a causal connection between a prescription drug (Parlodel
concluding that differential diagnosis expert testimony of a causal connection between a prescription drug (Parlodel
holding that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where a district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant
holding that the lower court’s jurisdictional ruling, which did not address the claim’s merits, should have been dismissed without prejudice
concluding that a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate forum

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ebel, Henry, Rogers

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

100 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.