Legal Opinion

Rogers v. Hexol, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided November 2, 1962No. Civ. 62-205PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  3. Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Clark v. Associated Retail Credit Men of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  5. Fehely v. SendersOregon Supreme Court · 1943

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Saechao v. MatsakounCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  2. Cokas v. PerkinsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1966
  3. Brackenbrough v. MacCloskeyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  4. Saechao v. MatsakounCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API