540 F. Supp. 2d 933 - Montgomery v. Wyeth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “That definition is a contractual provision in a freely-negotiated settlement about which all class members had notice and an opportunity to object. In re Diet Drugs, MDL 1203 PTO 2623, 2002 WL 34505034 , at , 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20323 , (E.D.Pa. Oct. 8, 2002). The settlement agreement gives class members with PPH “a right to the full and complete relief allowed by law.” In re Diet Drugs, MDL 1203 PTO 3085, 2003 WL 22669132 , , 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20221 , (E.D.Pa. Oet.24, 2003). The problem for Plaintiff is the settlement agreement cannot change Tennessee substantive law. See In re Diet Drugs, PTO 2623, 2002 WL 34505034 , at , 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20323 at (“Any PPH claim, of course, will be subject to the substantive law and evidentiary and procedural rules of the place where the claim is being litigated.”). Plaintiff complains the settlement agreement prevented her from asserting her PPH claim until the PPH definition was met. The parties contractually agreed as to the administration of PPH claims, but could not create a substantive claim that is barred by Tennessee law. Furthermore, the PPH definition was articulated by leading medical experts and has never been challenged as inaccurate. In re Diet Drugs, PTO 3085, 2003 WL 22669132 , at , 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20221 at ; In re Diet Drugs, PTO 2623, 2002 WL 32154194 , at , 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20323 at . “If anything, the definition is more generous to claimants than it might otherwise have been.” In re Diet Drugs, PTO”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Montgomery v. Wyeth

2. “[T]he principles in the Restatement ... suggest Tennessee law should apply. Plaintiff argues Tennessee has an interest in compensating its resident and Georgia has an interest in regulating a product sold in its state. But this argument fails. Tennessee’s interest is not in compensating its resident for harm done to her. Such an interest may be a good idea, but that is a decision for the General Assembly, not the Court. The policy of Tennessee as exemplified through its statute of repose is that residents who suffer from diseases with long incubation or latency periods are not entitled to recover for harms done to them. Although this statute is designed to limit product liability costs for manufacturers and sellers, it is not inapplicable merely because the product was not purchased in Tennessee. Pondimin was sold for a short, period of time in Tennessee, and PPH is not the only latent disease for which the legislature decided not to create an exception. To the extent Tennessee wants to protect Pondimin’s manufacturers and sellers from product liability costs, the statute advances that goal. And while Georgia does have an interest in regulating a product sold there, Tennessee has an interest in regulating a product used here; it chooses to effect that interest by strictly limiting the time that actions can be brought.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Montgomery v. Wyeth