Legal Opinion
Burgess v. Clairol, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided October 30, 1991No. 87 C 8918PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
Before the court is defendant Clairol Incorporated’s (“Clairol”) motion to dismiss Count IV of the plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.
FACTS
Sometime prior to July 1, 1986, George Burgess purchased a product called “The Foot Fixer,” which was manufactured and distributed by Clairol. The Foot Fixer was designed to maintain the temperature of water put into it between 95 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. George Burgess, a diabetic with poor circulation in his feet,…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- The HarrisburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Cunis v. BrennanIllinois Supreme Court · 1974
- B. Doe, M.D., on Behalf of B. Doe and B. Doe's Patients v. St. Joseph's Hospital of Fort WayneCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Ballweg v. City of SpringfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1986
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- LaSalle National Bank v. WillisAppellate Court of Illinois · 2007
- Vincent v. ALDEN-PARK STRATHMOOR, INC.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010
- LaSalle National Bank v. WillisAppellate Court of Illinois · 2007
- Vincent v. Alden-Park Strathmoor, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010