D.A.B. v. BROWN

No. C2-97-817.

570 N.W.2d 168 (1997)

D.A.B. et al., Appellants, v. David R. BROWN, Caremark, Inc., Genentech, Inc., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

November 4, 1997.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard M. Ihrig, Michael D.L. Olafson, Steven M. Pincus, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, for appellants.

Kay Nord Hunt, Phillip A. Cole, Mary I. King, Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent David R. Brown.

John W. Lundquist, Thompson, Lundquist & Sicoli, Ltd., Minneapolis, and Howard M. Pearl, Catherine W. Joyce, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, for respondent Caremark, Inc.

Jeffrey J. Keyes, Jay W. Schlosser, Briggs & Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, and Charles B. Sklarsky, Robert R. Stauffer, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for respondent Genentech, Inc.

Considered and decided by SHORT, P.J., and CRIPPEN and WILLIS, JJ.


OPINION

SHORT, Judge.

This case arises out of a physician's prescription for Protropin, a synthetic growth hormone drug. A putative class of patients and their parents sued the physician, drug manufacturer, and drug distributor for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to breach that duty, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 325F.68-.70 (1996). On appeal from...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases