Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• excluding Dr. Kulig’s testimony and stating that he “could only list ‘possible’ mechanisms for Parlodel® causing hypertension”
• rejecting Dr. Kulig’s reliance on case reports because, inter alia, these reports “fail to take into account the postpartum incidence of stroke and other factors”
• no reliable evidence that “bromocriptine and the other Ergots have sufficiently similar physiological effects to warrant comparison”
• “The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that bromocriptine and the other ergots have sufficiently similar physiological effects to warrant comparison.”
• “The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that bromocriptine and the other ergots have sufficiently similar physiological effects to warrant comparison.”
• rejecting Dr. Kulig’s reliance on other ergots evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).