Proto v. Lilly

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Proto v. Lilly

633 A.2d 266, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 249, 1993 WL 489662

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

DocketNo. 93-18-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 633 A.2d 266 (Proto v. Lilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Proto v. Lilly, 633 A.2d 266, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 249, 1993 WL 489662 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 266, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 249, 1993 WL 489662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proto-v-lilly-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack