Legal Opinion
Thorogood v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided February 12, 2010No. 09-3005PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is a sequel to an earlier appeal by the plaintiff that we decided against him. See 547 F.3d 742 (7th Cir.2008). The plaintiff, a Tennessean, had bought a Kenmore-brand clothes dryer from Sears Roebuck (Kenmore is a Sears brand name). The words “stainless steel” were imprinted on the dryer, but part of the dryer’s drum was made of another material. He filed a class action suit in an Illinois state court on behalf of himself and the other purchasers, scattered across 28 states plus the District of Columbia, of the half million or so Kenmore dryers represented…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- City of Riverside v. RiveraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Marek v. ChesnySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Barfield v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- O'BRIEN v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Arnold Chapman v. First Index, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- Rashad Swanigan v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- Tanasi v. New Alliance BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Thorogood v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.