Legal Opinion
Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Board of Pharmacy
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 7, 1960PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtReid S. Moule, J.
This is a motion by the defendants for summary judgment. The plaintiff also seeks summary judgment (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113).
There appear to be no substantial questions of fact presented by the pleadings other than that the amended complaint alleges in paragraphs Tenth and Twelfth that Bayer Aspirin Tablets are not poisonous, deleterious and/or habit-forming within the meaning of section 6816 (subd. 2, par. e) of the Education Law. These allegations are put in issue by the answer but the defendants have not supported the denials by affidavits containing evidentiary facts as is required on…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Louis K. Liggett Co. v. BaldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Defiance Milk Products Co. v. Du MondNew York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Jay Burns Baking Co. v. BryanSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- The People v. . MarxNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cox v. StrettonNew York Supreme Court · 1974
- Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Board of PharmacyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961