Legal Opinion
Gilks v. Olay Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 28, 1998No. 97 Civ. 5687(DC)PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CHIN, District Judge.
In this diversity case, plaintiff Tina Gilks seeks damages for a severe skin reaction allegedly caused by defendants’ well-known product Oil of Olay Moisture Replenishing Cream (“Oil of Olay” or the “Product”). Plaintiff asserts tort, breach of warranty, and strict liability claims against defendants Olay Company, Inc. and The Proctor & Gamble Distributing Company, incorrectly sued herein as Proctor & Gamble Co.
Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- R.G. Group, Inc., and R.G. Restaurant Associates v. The Horn & Hardart Company, and Bojangles' of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Avola v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Sita v. Danek Medical, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1999
- Glowczenski v. Taser International, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Derienzo v. Trek Bicycle Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- In re RossUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.