O'NEIL v. Simplicity, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the O’Neils’ crib has not exhibited the alleged defect” even though the O’Neils alleged that a defect had manifested
• holding district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where plaintiff has not followed applicable procedural rules
• noting that “[t]his case is similar to other no-injury cases,” and concluding that “[t]he [plaintiffs’ product] performs just as it was intended, and thus there is no injury and no basis for relief”
• noting that “[t]his case is similar to other no-injury cases,” and concluding that “[t]he [plaintiffs’ product] performs just as it was intended, and thus there is no injury and no basis for relief”
• noting that plaintiffs allege the cribs are defective because the drop-side can separate from the crib frame but that the plaintiffs “do not allege . . . that such a separation has ever occurred in their crib”
• “The O’Neils’ crib performs just as it was intended, and thus there is no injury and no basis for relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).