McKinney v. Bayer Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying enhanced pleading requirements in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act because the provision is not “pan-substantive”
• analyzing Ohio authority and declining to extend “the limited privity exception articulated in Bobb Forest beyond the facts of that case.”
• declining to create an exception to Curl, even where the consumer was the intended beneficiary of the manufacturer’s agreement with its dealer
• noting split between courts in the Northern District of Ohio and the Southern District of Ohio on the question of who has standing to file suit under the ODT-PA
• noting split between courts in the Northern District of Ohio and the Southern District of Ohio on the question of who has standing to file suit under the ODTPA
• “Consumer failed to allege privity of contract with vitamin producer, as required to state claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Ohio law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).