Legal Opinion

Pearlman v. Garrod Shoe Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 23, 1937PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRippey, J.

This action is brought to recover damages arising out of the death of Eunice Pearlman. Defendant was a retailer of shoes. It represented, by means of advertising and orally at its store, that the shoes which it sold marked the latest step in the progress of shoe making and embodied every proven principle of health, of fit and of orthopedic design. On February 1, 1930, the deceased, a child of eight years of age, accompanied her mother to defendant’s store where she was fitted with a pair of shoes so advertised and so represented. The salesman was told that the child was under special training…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Chysky v. . Drake Brothers Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
  3. Mesibov, Glinert & Levy v. Cohen Bros. Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
  4. Turner v. Edison Storage Battery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  5. Bourcheix v. Willow Brook Dairy, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1935

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Carter v. Yardley & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  2. Marguerite Jamieson v. Woodward & LothropCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
  3. Mull v. Colt Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1962
  4. Greenberg v. LorenzNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
  5. Alfieri v. Cabot Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962

11 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