Legal Opinion
Florence Wright and Roy Wright v. Carter Products, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 1, 1957No. 19-1384PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WATERMAN, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs, Florence and Roy Wright, appeal from a judgment below dismissing their complaint and awarding judgment to the defendant. Florence sought damages for personal injuries suffered by her from the application of a deodorant and anti-perspirant manufactured by the defendant and distributed under the tradename “Arrid.” Roy, her husband, sought recovery for medical expenses and damages for loss of services.
Mrs. Wright, a resident of Belmont, Massachusetts, had used Arrid two or three times a week for approximately five years prior to June 1951 without suffering…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Central Vermont Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Clarence Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Nationalsurety Corporation, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Reyes v. Wyeth LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
- Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1972
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.