Heimsoth v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Culbertson
This appeal arises from an action which was brought to recover damages occasioned by appellant, John Heimsoth (hereinafter called plaintiff) becoming ill from consuming a portion of a bottle of Falstaff beer, which contained a “prophylactic latex.” At the trial with the jury, the court below granted defendant’s motion at the close of plaintiff’s evidence to find defendant not guilty and judgment was entered on the directed verdict in favor of appellee, Falstaff Brewing Corporation (hereinafter called defendant). The sole question before us is whether or not the court properly-directed a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Blumb v. GetzIllinois Supreme Court · 1937
- Peters v. PetersIllinois Supreme Court · 1941
- Patargias v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1947
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Henderson v. MunnCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Williams v. Paducah Coca Cola Bottling Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
- Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. CatheyArizona Supreme Court · 1957
- May v. Columbian Rope Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1963
- Foster v. Union Starch & Refining Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1956
- Neubauer v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.