Canfield v. Penney Company
This text of 403 F.2d 720 (Canfield v. Penney Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
403 F.2d 720
Doreen E. CANFIELD, and infant, by Doris A. Canfield, her
Guardian ad Litem, and Doris A. Canfield,
Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants,
v.
J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, Inc. and Crown Juvenile Products,
Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Appellees, and
Well-Made Baby Products Co., Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 165, 169, Dockets 32545, 32562.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 5, 1968.
Decided Dec. 11, 1968.
Leonard Feldman, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees-appellants.
Joseph P. Napoli, New York City (McLaughlin, Fiscella & Biancheri, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant-appellee, J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
Arthur N. Seiff, New York City (Michels, Walton, Cullen & Mele, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant-appellee, Crown Juvenile Products, Inc.
William F. McNulty, New York City (Zweibel, Steger & Foster, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee, Well-Made Baby Products Co.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, and FRANKEL, District Judge.1
PER CURIAM:
The judgment is affirmed.
Sitting by designation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
403 F.2d 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canfield-v-penney-company-ca2-1968.