Legal Opinion
State v. Ritholz
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 8, 1962No. 38,405PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Thomas Gallagher, Justice.
Action by the state, at the instance of the State Board of Optometry, pursuant to Minn. St. 148.52 to 148.62, to restrain the individual defendants, residents of Chicago, and King Optical Company, a co-partnership comprised of such defendants, from “soliciting business by advertisements containing ‘price advertising.’ King Optical Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling eyeglasses upon prescriptions from licensed optometrists, physicians, and surgeons. Its principal place of business is in Chicago, and it maintains offices in a number of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Sage-Allen Co., Inc. v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Dvorine v. Castelberg Jewelry Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1936
- Ezell v. RitholzSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
- Neill v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Supermarkets Gen. Corp. v. SillsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1966