Rogers v. Hexol, Inc.
District Court, D. Oregon
1Opinion of the Court
EAST, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s complaint is in notice and demand form, but her apparent claim assumes a form of narrative life through her discovery deposition taken by the defendant.
It seems that the defendant manufactures and sells to dealers through interstate commerce for resale to the public a liquid disinfectant and cosmetic product under the trade name of “Hexol” and that Hexol contains a derivative of pine oil. Plaintiff asserts that this derivative is •toxic and a poisonous and deleterious substance and that the bottle of Hexol she had purchased from a Eugene, Oregon, retailer and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1941
- Clark v. Associated Retail Credit Men of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Fehely v. SendersOregon Supreme Court · 1943
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Saechao v. MatsakounCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- Cokas v. PerkinsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1966
- Brackenbrough v. MacCloskeyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
- Saechao v. MatsakounCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986