TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citing references

Opinions citing Brown v. Marshall, 11 N.W. 392 (Mich. 1882)

39 citing cases

Negative treatment
Depth Newest Oldest Most cited
Majority opinions only
1 2–3 4–9 10+ times cited
  1. Jones v. Walgreen Co.
    265 Ill. App. 308 Appellate Court of IllinoisFebruary 23, 1932

    Dec. 768 ; Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. 392 , 41 Am. Rep. 728 .

  2. Abrams v. Bute
    138 A.D.3d 179 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New YorkMarch 9, 2016

    Indeed, “[p]eople trust not merely their health but their lives to the knowledge, care and prudence of druggists, and in many cases a slight want of care is liable to prove fatal to some one” (Brown v Marshall, 47 Mich 576, 583 , 11 NW 392, 395 [1882]).

  3. Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Sullivan
    158 S.W.2d 721 Tennessee Supreme CourtFebruary 14, 1942

    However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages and medicines, we believe with Judge Cooley, as *410 expressed in Brown v. Marshall, supra [ 47 Mich., 576 , 11 N. W., 392 , 41 Am.

  4. Crigger v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
    132 Tenn. 545 Tennessee Supreme CourtApril 15, 1915

    A., 139; note; Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich., 576 , 11 N. W., 392 , 41 Am.

  5. Graham v. Cloar
    205 S.W.2d 764 Court of Appeals of TennesseeMay 30, 1947

    However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe Judge Cooley, as expressed in Brown v. Marshall, supra, 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. 392 , 41 Am.

  6. Delk v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
    186 S.E. 383 Supreme Court of South CarolinaJune 10, 1936

    However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe with Judge Cooley, as expressed in Brown v. Marshall, supra ( 47 Mich., 576 , 11 N. W., 392 , 41 Am.

  7. Childs Dining Hall Co. v. Swingler
    197 A. 105 Court of Appeals of MarylandJanuary 14, 1938

    However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe with Judge Cooley, as expressed in Brown v. Marshall, supra, ( 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N.

  8. Floyd v. Florence Nehi Bottling Co.
    198 S.E. 161 Supreme Court of South CarolinaJuly 19, 1938

    However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe with Judge Cooley, as expressed in Brown v. Marshall, supra ( 47 Mich., 576 , 11 N. W., 392 , 41 Am.

  9. Tate v. Mauldin
    154 S.E. 131 Supreme Court of South CarolinaAugust 14, 1930

    However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe with Judge Cooley, as expressed in Brown v. Marshall, supra [ 47 Mich., 576 , 41 Am Rep 728, 11 N.

  10. Edelstein v. Cook
    108 Ohio St. (N.S.) 346 Ohio Supreme CourtJune 19, 1923

    The principal cases cited by plaintiffs in error are Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich., 576 , 11 N. W., 392 , 41 Am. Rep., 728 , and Howes v. Rose, 13 Ind. App., 674 , 42 N. E., 303 , 55 Am. St. Rep., 251 .

  11. Jenney Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Flannery
    98 N.E. 424 Indiana Court of AppealsMay 10, 1912

    A. 253; Brown v. Marshall (1882), 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. 392 , 41 Am. Rep. 728 ; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. McKenzie (1902), 30 Tex. Civ. App. 293 , 70 S. W. 237 . 20.

  12. Flaccomio v. Eysink
    100 A. 510 Court of Appeals of MarylandDecember 13, 1916

    Marshall, supra ( 47 Mich. 576 ), that negligence is a necessary element in the right of action, and the better authorities have not gone so far as to dispense with actual negligence as a prerequisite to the lia,bility.

  13. Allan v. State Steamship Co.
    30 N.E. 482 New York Court of AppealsMarch 8, 1892

    That precise question was decided, however, in Brown v. Marshall ( 47 Mich. 576 ) and in Beckwith v. Oatman ( 43 Hun, 265 ).

  14. Merriman v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
    68 S.W.2d 149 Court of Appeals of TennesseeJuly 29, 1933

    *Page 440 However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe with Judge Cooley, as expressed in Brown v. Marshall [ 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N.W. 392 , 41 Am.

  15. Skinn v. Reutter
    63 L.R.A. 743 Michigan Supreme CourtNovember 17, 1903

    See, also, Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 ( 11 N. W. 392 , 41 Am. Rep. 728 ); Thomas v. Win chester, 6 N. Y, 397 ( 57 Am. Dec. 455 ); The Nitroglycerine Case, 15 Wall. 524 ; Griggs v. Fleckenstein, 14 Minn. 81 ( 100 Am. Dec. 199 ). In Filer v.

  16. Tremblay v. Kimball
    77 A. 405 Supreme Judicial Court of MaineSeptember 1, 1910

    Snelling, 14 Allen 290 ; Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 .

  17. Tucker v. Graves
    88 So. 40 Alabama Court of AppealsNovember 9, 1920

    Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. 392 , 41 Am. Rep. 728 . It was the duty of defendant to have sold plaintiff paregoric, the harmless drug; instead, defendant delivered to plaintiff a poisonous drug.

  18. Fort Wayne Drug Co. v. Flemion
    175 N.E. 670 Indiana Court of AppealsApril 14, 1931

    App. 531 ; Brown v. Marshall (1882), 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. 392 , 41 Am. Rep. 728; Tucker v. Graves (1920), 17 Ala. App. 602 , 88 So. 40 . In the case of Weiser v.

  19. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Rowland
    66 S.W.2d 272 Court of Appeals of TennesseeDecember 19, 1932

    Marshall, supra ( 47 Mich., 576 ), that negligence is a necessary ele *195 ment in tbe right of action, and the better authorities have not gone so far as to dispense with actual negligence as a prerequisite to the liability.

  20. Gibson v. Torbert
    56 L.R.A. 98 Supreme Court of IowaDecember 20, 1901

    Dec. 563 ), and Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 ( 11 N. W. Rep. 392 , 41 Am. Rep. 728 ), are all cases in which mistakes were made in putting up medicine. Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney, 92 Ky. 367 ( 17 S. W. Rep. 1025 , 14 L. R. A. 677, 36 Am. St.

  21. Olympia v. Sherman
    52 F. 985 E.D. MichiganJune 2, 1891

    Platt, 32 Conn. 75 ; Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. Rep. 392 ; Gault v. Humes, 20 Md. 297 ; Morgan v. Symonds, 1 Jur. 137. Tried by this rule, it is clear that the claimant has established hisdefense.

  22. Hoar v. Rasmusen
    282 N.W. 652 Wisconsin Supreme CourtNovember 11, 1938

    Kimball (1910), 107 Me. 53 , 77 Atl. 405 ; Brown v. Marshall (1882), 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. 392 ; 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 900; 31 A. L. R. 1336.

  23. State v. Kammel
    122 N.W. 420 South Dakota Supreme CourtJune 26, 1909

    Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 , 11 N. W. 392 ; Isenhour v. State, 157 Ind. 517 , 62 N. E. 40 . It is also contended by the appellant that the cooked and uncooked oatmeal and the stomach of the deceased, which it is claimed was senlt to Prof.

  24. Wilk v. Black
    154 N.W. 561 Michigan Supreme CourtOctober 29, 1915

    Burgett, 38 Mich. 501 ; Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576 ( 11 N. W. 392 , 41 Am. Rep. 728 ) ; Farrell v. Haze, 157 Mich. 374 ( 122 N. W. 197 ) ; Rogers v. Kee, 171 Mich. 551 ( 137 N. W. 260 ), and the very recent cases of Duffy v.

  25. Troppi v. Scarf
    187 N.W.2d 511 Michigan Court of AppealsFebruary 26, 1971

    In Brown v. Marshall (1882), 47 Mich 576, 583 , plaintiff requested Epsom salts from her druggist, who instead sold her zinc sulphate. Plaintiff suffered severe burns.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list