Legal Opinion

Crussell Ex Rel. J.C. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Arkansas

Decided August 10, 2007No. 4:06-cv-04042PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BARNES, District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted, (Doc. 9) filed on behalf of Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”). Electrolux argues that Plaintiff Deshanda Crussell’s claims' — seeking recovery for negligent personal injury to her unborn child — are not recognized by the courts of Arkansas and should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Electrolux also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the purported failure of Plaintiffs cause of action. (Doc. 7-1).…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fields v. Wyeth, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2009
  2. Cincinnati Insurance Companies v. Collier Landholdings, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2009
  3. Ankrom v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API