Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Supreme Court of California
44 Cal. 3d 1103, 245 Cal. Rptr. 658, 751 P.2d 923 (1988)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Jolly (plaintiff) was in utero when her mother took the synthetic drug estrogen diethylstilbestrol (DES) to prevent miscarriage. Jolly was born in 1951. Jolly learned in 1972 that a mother’s use of DES while pregnant could harm her fetus. Jolly went to a medical clinic, where she was diagnosed with a precancerous condition. By 1976, Jolly’s condition had developed into cancer. Jolly had some affected tissue surgically removed, and in 1978, she underwent a hysterectomy and partial vaginectomy to eliminate the cancer. Jolly was unable to learn the source of the DES prescribed to her mother. However, in 1980 the Supreme Court of California held in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 607 P.2d 924 (1980), that victims who were unable to identify the source of their mothers’ DES could instead state a cause of action against DES manufacturers who produced a substantial market share of the drug. Less than one year after the Sindell decision, Jolly sued a number of DES manufacturers (defendants). The California Code of Civil Procedure § 340 (3) placed a one-year statute of limitations on suits for tortious injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Jolly’s suit was time barred. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion. Jolly appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Panelli, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
