Crussell Ex Rel. J.C. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
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
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- 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
- Fields v. Wyeth, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2009
- Cincinnati Insurance Companies v. Collier Landholdings, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2009
- Ankrom v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2013