Legal Opinion

Lancaster v. W.A. Hartzell & Associates, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 23, 1981No. A7709-13079, CA 17049PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

Plaintiff filed this action for personal injuries against defendants Reliance Universal, Inc. (Reliance), Huggy Bear’s Cupboards, Inc. (Huggy Bear), and W.A. Hartzell & Associates, Inc. (Hartzell), arising out of her use of a wood stain she obtained from Hartzell. The stain, manufactured by Reliance, was sold to Huggy Bear, which in turn sold it to Hartzell. Plaintiff sought to impose liability on all three defendants on theories of strict liability and negligence. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Reliance, and plaintiff has not assigned that ruling as error. A judgment…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Gilbert v. Stone City Const. Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Siemen v. AldenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  4. Fulbright v. Klamath Gas CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Goetz v. Avildsen Tool & MacHines, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Docken v. Ciba-GeigyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. Pruitt v. Cargill, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1985
  3. Engel v. Corrigan Co.-Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Kearney v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  5. Docken v. Ciba-GeigyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API