Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Epstein
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
Citation:607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Over the course of 30 years, from 1941 to 1971, the defendant drug manufacturers made and marked a drug called DES—a synthetic compound of the female hormone estrogen. The drug entered the public domain in 1938, so hundreds of manufacturers were making an identical drug. The drug was given to the plaintiff’s mother while pregnant for the purpose of preventing miscarriage. It had been authorized by this purpose by the FDA on an experimental basis with the requirement of a warning label to that effect. In 1971, the FDA ordered manufacturers to cease making and marketing DES for the purpose of preventing miscarriages, due to danger to unborn children. During the period in question, the defendants knew or should have known that DES was a carcinogen that caused pre-cancerous growths in the daughters of mothers who took it while pregnant, but they continued to market and advertise it as preventing miscarriages. It is unclear which specific manufacturer made the exact DES that the plaintiff’s mother ingested which in turn caused the plaintiff’s injury.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.