D. South Dakota· 5/16/1983
McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Citations
- 564 F. Supp. 265
- 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16938
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that because under South Dakota law plaintiff is not required to identify which of defendant-DES manufacturers produced injury-causing product, burden on causation issue is shifted to defendants
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Donald J. Porter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re \Agent Orange\ Product Liability LitigationE.D. New York· 1984-09-25· cited 214×
- Martin v. Abbott LaboratoriesWashington Supreme Court· 1984-10-04· cited 160×
- Northington v. MarinTenth Circuit· 1996-12-31· cited 150×
- Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1990-10-01· cited 116×
- Don M. Davis, as of the Estate of Ethlyn M. Davis, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Appellant/cross-AppelleeEighth Circuit· 1990-06-15· cited 73×
- Shackil v. Lederle LaboratoriesSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1989-07-31· cited 73×
- Conley v. Boyle Drug Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1990-11-01· cited 66×
- Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1986-04-16· cited 46×
- Gorman v. Abbott LaboratoriesD. Rhode Island· 1986-03-17· cited 46×
- Monica Santiago v. Sherwin Williams CompanyFirst Circuit· 1993-09-10· cited 37×
- Zands v. NelsonS.D. California· 1992-06-25· cited 33×
- McCormack v. Abbott LaboratoriesD. Massachusetts· 1985-09-30· cited 26×
- Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1988-05-25· cited 25×
- Shackil v. Lederle LaboratoriesNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1987-08-12· cited 22×
- Copeland v. Celotex Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1984-03-06· cited 22×
- Santiago v. Sherwin-Williams Co.D. Massachusetts· 1992-01-13· cited 17×
- American Family Insurance Group v. HoweD. South Dakota· 1984-04-16· cited 15×
- Gnirk v. Ford Motor Co.D. South Dakota· 1983-10-14· cited 13×
- Conley v. Boyle Drug Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-08-28· cited 12×
- McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co.D. South Dakota· 1983-11-25· cited 10×
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court· 1967-06-05· cited 1,739×
- Summers v. TiceCalifornia Supreme Court· 1948-11-17· cited 428×
- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court· 1944-07-05· cited 411×
- Sindell v. Abbott LaboratoriesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1980-03-20· cited 373×
- Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1976-12-31· cited 170×
- Bichler v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals· 1982-05-11· cited 155×
- Engberg v. Ford Motor CompanySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1973-03-08· cited 95×
- Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co.D. South Carolina· 1981-05-14· cited 79×
- Mulder v. TagueSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1971-05-17· cited 70×
- Smith v. SmithSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1979-04-12· cited 62×
- Jahnig v. CoismanSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1979-09-26· cited 60×
- Albers v. OttenbacherSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1962-08-13· cited 57×
- Robert M. Snell and Rosalie J. Snell, Husband and Wife v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1982-06-18· cited 50×
- A. D. Luster, A's Fishhouses, Inc. v. Retail Credit CompanyEighth Circuit· 1978-06-07· cited 45×
- Yarrow v. Sterling Drug, Inc.D. South Dakota· 1967-01-25· cited 36×
- Bucholz v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1958-08-15· cited 35×
- Wittmeier v. PostSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1960-09-30· cited 34×
- Fajardo v. CammackSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1982-08-11· cited 30×
- Kramer v. SIOUX TRANSIT, INC.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1970-10-21· cited 28×
- Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Henry Carlson Co.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1969-02-25· cited 27×
Other cases named McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co.
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.