RITA RENE MARTIN, ET AL, Appellants,
v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ET AL, Respondents.
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 4, 1984.
October 4, 1984.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Manza, Moceri, Gustafson & Messina, P.S., by Michael S. Manza, John S. Glassman, and John L. Messina, for appellants.
Reed, McClure, Moceri & Thonn, P.S., by Hugh McClure, and Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, by Jane E. Gilbertsen, for respondents Abbott Laboratories, et al.
Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson, by William A. Helsell and Karen J. Vanderlaan (Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, by Richard J. Heafey and Peter W. Davis, of counsel), for respondent Eli Lilly.
Williams, Lanza, Kastner & Gibbs, by Joseph J. Lanza, Douglas A. Hofmann, and Karen J. Feyerherm, for respondent E.R. Squibb & Sons.
Richard J. Dunlap and R. Scott Fallon, for respondent Kirkman Laboratories.
Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, by Frank W. Draper and Elizabeth K. Reeve, for respondents Merck and Co., et al.
Bradford M. Gierke and Sandra Bobrick (of Gierke, Curwen, Metzler & Bobrick), for respondent Raway Pharmaceutical Co.
F. Lee Campbell and David D. Swartling (of Karr, Tuttle, Koch, Campbell, Mawer & Morrow, P.S.), for respondent Rexall Drug Co.
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & O'Hern, by Mark G. Honeywell, for respondent Stanlabs Pharmaceutical Co.
Mullin, Etter & Cronin, P.S., by Ronald K. Mullin, for respondent Upjohn Co.
Hackett, Beecher, Hart, Branom, Vavricheck & Drury, by John A. Drury, for respondents Ludwig, et al.
Tewell, Thorpe & Findlay, Inc., P.S., Duane Tewell, and Paul F. Cane, for respondents Breon Laboratories and Winthrop Laboratories.
Williams, Lanza, Kastner & Gibbs, by Mary H. Spillane and Don T. Mohlman, for respondents Ayerst Laboratories and Wyeth Laboratories.
Bogle & Gates, Ronald T. Schaps, and William G. Clark, for respondent Armour Pharmaceutical Co.
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
DORE, J.
This case concerns whether plaintiffs, allegedly injured by the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES), have a cause of action against numerous DES manufacturers when they cannot identify the specific manufacturer of the DES ingested. The trial court held that plaintiffs had stated a cause of action when it denied summary judgment as to two drug manufacturers, finding material issues of fact under a theory of alternate liability.
We reject the application...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
