Legal Opinion
Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 18, 1961No. Civ. 25099PublishedCited by 57 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NOURSE, J. pro tem. *
Petitioner is the defendant in an action brought against it and others by one Isaac Klug and his wife, Bertha Klug, real parties in interest here.
By the first cause of action of their amended complaint real parties in interest sought damages against petitioner for alleged injury to Bertha King’s eyes as a result of a hair spray manufactured by petitioner having been sprayed into her eyes during a hairdressing procedure. This count of the amended complaint alleges in substance: That petitioner produced, sold and advertised a hair lacquer and spray known as “Just…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hovey v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Hammond Packing Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Crummer v. BeelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Pettie v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Unger v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Greyhound Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1998
- Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1982
- Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1994
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.