Legal Opinion
McMurdo v. Getter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 20, 1937PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
The plaintiff, a duly registered optometrist practising in Spencer, brought this bill “for his own benefit, for the benefit of other optometrists, and for the benefit of the public,” to restrain the defendants, a firm of opticians in Worcester not physicians nor registered optometrists, from practising optometry in competition with the plaintiff and other optometrists without being registered under the statute. Another duly registered optometrist practising in Worcester was admitted as an intervening party plaintiff. The case was reported to us on agreed facts, without decision.
No question is…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Truax v. RaichSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Frost v. Corporation Comm'n of Okla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Kelley v. RossiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
- Cameron v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Commonwealth v. Town of HudsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.