green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Haines & Assoc. v. Khalil, A.
Accord Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248, 1283 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal granted on other grounds, 206 A.3d 495 (Pa. 2019) (“[A]ll relevant evidence is meant to prejudice a defendant, so exclusion is limited to evidence so prejudicial that it would inflame the jury to make a decision based upon something other than -9- J-A27002-19 the legal propositions relevant to the case.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams, J. v. OAO Severstal v. Tri-State Safety
See, e.g., Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2018), allowance of appeal granted, 206 A.3d 495 (Pa. 2019) (involving a products-liability claim that accrued in Indiana, where a surgeon implanted defective virginal mesh into an Indiana resident; she sued the New Jersey-based manufacturer in Pennsylvania, even though no harm befell her here).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patricia L. HAMMONS
v.
ETHICON, INC. and Johnson & Johnson Gynecare Secant Medical Secant Medical Inc. Prodesco, Inc. and Secant Medical, LLC Petition of: Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Sharon Carlino and Charles Carlino v. Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson and Gynecare Secant Medical Secant Medical Inc., Prodesco, Inc. and Secant Medical LLC Petition of: Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson In re: Pelvic Mesh Litigation Petition of: Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
v.
ETHICON, INC. and Johnson & Johnson Gynecare Secant Medical Secant Medical Inc. Prodesco, Inc. and Secant Medical, LLC Petition of: Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Sharon Carlino and Charles Carlino v. Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson and Gynecare Secant Medical Secant Medical Inc., Prodesco, Inc. and Secant Medical LLC Petition of: Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson In re: Pelvic Mesh Litigation Petition of: Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
No. 458 EAL 2018; No. 111 EM 2018; No. 112 EM 2018.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 10, 2019.
206 A.3d 495
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue as stated by Petitioner is:
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(c) precludes Pennsylvania from asserting personal jurisdiction over two New Jersey companies in a case brought by an Indiana resident asserting claims under the Indiana Product Liability Act.
The Petitions at 111 EM 2018 and 112 EM 2018 for Extraordinary Relief and/or King's Bench Jurisdiction are DENIED.