Chang v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation

599 F.3d 728 (2010)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
C
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Chang v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
599 F.3d 728 (2010)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

A group of Taiwanese residents (plaintiffs) believed that certain manufacturers of blood-clotting factors (the manufacturers) (defendants) wrongfully distributed HIV-contaminated blood-clotting factors in foreign countries, which were then injected into the Taiwanese residents and caused them to be infected with HIV in the 1980s. By 1998, counsel for the Taiwanese residents had begun settlement negotiations with some manufacturers of the blood-clotting factors, giving the Taiwanese residents reason to suspect the manufacturers’ wrongful or negligent conduct. In 2004, the Taiwanese residents filed a tort action against the manufacturers in California district court. The action was transferred to a Chicago district court to join other similar products-liability actions in multidistrict litigation. The trial court dismissed the Taiwanese residents’ primary tort claim as untimely under California’s two-year statute of limitations. Alternatively, the trial court ruled that, under California’s borrowing statute, a California court would apply Taiwan’s 10-year statute of repose, which would also operate to bar the Taiwanese residents’ tort claim. The Taiwanese residents appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Conflict of Laws

Key Terms