Legal Opinion

Drake v. Herrman

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 1933PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.

Defendant Inecto, Inc., manufactures by a secret formula a hair dye alleged in the complaint to be inherently dangerous and to have injured plaintiff by its application to her scalp, eye lashes and eyebrows. After joinder of issue plaintiff served notice upon defendant that its testimony before trial would be taken at a certain time and place. The notice specified that the matters, among others, upon which defendant would be examined relate to the chemicals, poisons, drugs and other ingredients and their percentages used in the product and also to its preparation particularly in respect to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tabor v. . HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Matter of DaviesNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  3. Karr v. Inecto, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  4. Middleton v. BoardmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1925

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
  2. Arnold v. May Department Stores Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  3. Mann v. Cooper Tire Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  4. Penthouse International, Ltd. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
  5. Curtis v. Complete Foam Insulation Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API