Legal Opinion
Spiegel v. Saks 34th Street
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided May 20, 1964PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWalter R. Hart, J.
The complaint herein alleges three distinct causes of action or theories on behalf of plaintiff wife — negligence, implied warranty and express warranty.
The evidence adduced at the trial establishes that in October, 1960 a product known as Ultra Nadinola, manufactured by defendant National Toilet Co. and sold by defendant Saks 34th Street, came to the attention of plaintiff wife by reason of an advertisement in The Daily Netos. The advertisement, showing Saks 34th Street as the vendor, reads as follows:
Not just another cosmetic * * * a completely new formula containing DIMATRON" * * *…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Otto E. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
- Hamon v. DiglianiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Florence Wright and Roy Wright v. Carter Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- Bennett v. Pilot Products Co., Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1951
- Karr v. Inecto, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hauter v. ZogartsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Opera v. Hyva, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Teixeria v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 2016
- Anderson v. Bungee International Manufacturing Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- Daley v. McNeil Consumer Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.