Legal Opinion

Hanrahan v. Walgreen Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 14, 1955No. 459PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.

Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2d Edition, defines cosmetic as “any external application intended to beautify and improve the complexion, skin, or hair.” The plaintiff has no evidence to cause the hair rinse she purchased from defendant to be deemed adulterated, as set forth in G.S. 106-136; or to cause it to be deemed misbranded, as set forth in G.S. 106-137; or to cause it to be deemed false advertising, as set forth in G.S. 106-138.

Plaintiff testified that the hair rinse she bought from defendant contained eight capsules, and she used all except three. Although three of these…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mills v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  2. Mills v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Bianchi v. Denholm & McKay Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  4. Worley v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1952
  5. Payne v. R. H. White Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  2. Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Magee v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. Parker v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  5. Boyd v. HarperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

16 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