TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Doreen Chambers, Anthony G. Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Company

Doreen CHAMBERS, Appellant, Anthony G. Chambers, Plaintiff, v. G. D. SEARLE & COMPANY, Appellee

Doreen Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Co., 567 F.2d 269 (4th Cir. 1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 15, 1977
Docket
No. 76-1521
Judges
Winter, Russell, Field
Citations
567 F.2d 2691977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5607

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff sued G. D. Searle & Co. (Searle) alleging that as a result of taking an oral contraceptive manufactured and sold by Searle, she had contracted cerebral thrombosis, and that Searle was liable for her injuries on the grounds of fraud, implied warranty, strict liability and negligence. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the district court granted Searle’s motion for a directed verdict, ruling, in a carefully considered and thorough opinion, that plaintiff had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to permit a jury to return a verdict in her favor on any one of the four theories of liability which she asserted. She appeals, contending that the district court was in error with regard to her claim of negligence on the part of Searle which resulted in her injuries.

After hearing oral argument and considering the briefs and record, we see no error. We are not persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to determine whether Searle was negligent in not pursuing medical research to determine the possible consequences from taking the oral contraceptive, or in failing to discover those consequences, or in the adequacy of the warnings given to physicians in the light of the medical knowledge at the time, or in overpromotion of sales of the product. On the issues presented on appeal, we affirm on the opinion of the district court.

Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Co., et al., 441 F.Supp. 377 (D.Md.1975).

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 51 cases

View all citing references →
1978: 11979: 21980: 61981: 51982: 11983: 31984: 21985: 31986: 31987: 11988: 51989: 41990: 11991: 31992: 21997: 22001: 12002: 12004: 32007: 12019: 119782026peak 1980 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hurley v. Lederle Laboratories, Division of American Cyanamid Co.651 F. Supp. 993 (E.D. Tex. 1986)
  2. Judith Brochu and Emmanuel T. Brochu v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation642 F.2d 652 (1st Cir. 1981)
  3. Skill v. Martinez91 F.R.D. 498 (D.N.J. 1981)
  4. Richard Leander Ferebee, Jr. v. Chevron Chemical Company736 F.2d 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
  5. MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.475 N.E.2d 65 (Mass. 1985)
  6. Werner v. Upjohn Co.628 F.2d 848 (4th Cir. 1980)

Most recent

  1. Ideus v. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc.361 F. Supp. 3d 938 (D. Neb. 2019)
  2. Beale v. Biomet, Inc.492 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2007)
  3. Doe v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.350 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D. Me. 2004)
  4. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey878 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2004)
  5. Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc.153 S.W.3d 758 (Ky. 2004)
  6. Miller v. Pfizer Inc.(Roerig Division)196 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Kan. 2002)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Co., 441 F. Supp. 377 (D. Maryland 1975) 66

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list