From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Proto v. Lilly

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Nov 18, 1993
633 A.2d 266 (R.I. 1993)

Opinion

No. 93-18-Appeal.

November 18, 1993.

Kathleen Golini.

Howard Merten, George Vetter, Don Kennedy, Paul Cantor, R. Borod.


ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court on November 1, 1993, pursuant to an order requiring the parties to appear and to show cause why the issues raised in the plaintiffs' appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, Eli Lilly Company. There was no competent evidence connecting the Eli Lilly Company with the manufacture of the drug. Consequently there is no genuine issue of material fact and the Eli Lilly Company is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Association, 603 A.2d 317, 320 (R.I. 1992). After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown.

The ruling of the trial justice is affirmed and the plaintiffs' appeal is denied and dismissed.


Summaries of

Proto v. Lilly

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Nov 18, 1993
633 A.2d 266 (R.I. 1993)
Case details for

Proto v. Lilly

Case Details

Full title:Kathleen PROTO et al. v. Eli LILLY et al

Court:Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date published: Nov 18, 1993

Citations

633 A.2d 266 (R.I. 1993)