Legal Opinion

Rowe v. Standard Drug Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1937No. 26432 and 26439PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

After the Court of Appeals had granted the permanent injunctions this court decided the case of State, ex rel. Brisker, Atty. Genl., v. Buhl Optical Co., 131 Ohio St., 217, 2 N. E. (2d), 601. Thereafter The Standard Drug Company and The May Company abandoned the plan of operating the optical departments and entered into new agreements.

Each contempt case was submitted on the agreed statement of facts and exhibits attached, for determination of the question whether the new arrangement constituted a violation of the decree enjoining the defendant corporation from practicing optometry and from…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Stearns v. . MarrNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
  2. Garrigan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1908
  3. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio · 1893
  4. State Ex Rel. Bricker v. Buhl Optical Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Ex Parte TestardTexas Supreme Court · 1909

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Midland Steel Products Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 486Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. McMurdo v. GetterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  3. State v. RonesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1953
  4. Neill v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Kendall v. BeilingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1943

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API