Legal Opinion

Karr v. Inecto, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 14, 1928PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLehman, J.

The defendant manufactures a chemical product known as Inecto Rapid. It offers that product for general sale, representing to the public that it may be used as a hair dye and applied to the head. The plaintiff conducts an establishment for the dressing and dyeing of women’s hair and for what she describes as “ general beauty culture work.” On March 31st, 1924, the plain tiff applied some of the dye manufactured by the defendant to the hair of her customer. The plaintiff had never used this dye on a customer’s hair before. The customer asked the plaintiff to use it. On four or five occasions…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cahill v. Inecto, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Defore v. Bourjois, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1958
  2. Arnold v. May Department Stores Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  3. Drake v. HerrmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
  4. Tremaine, Exrx. v. H. K. Mulford Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Kaempfe v. Lehn & Fink Products Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964

20 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