Legal Opinion

Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1986PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Edward M. Horey, J.

By appropriate motion the plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to assert a cause of action provided for under the Federal Consumer Product Safety Act. (C.P.S.A.; 15 USC § 2015 et seq.)

Such act sets forth that its purpose is to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury and to assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products, in addition to developing uniform safety standards and promoting research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related death, illnesses and injuries. (See, C.P.S.A.;…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Swenson v. Emerson Electric Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  3. Young v. Robertshaw Controls Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1983
  4. Young v. Robertshaw Controls Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  5. Greenview Trading Co. v. Hershman & Leicher, P. C.New York Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kent Village Associates Joint Venture v. SmithCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995
  2. Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API