Legal Opinion

Hruska v. Parke, Davis & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided June 4, 1925No. 6726PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POLLOCK, District Judge.

The question presented for review in this ease is clear and direct. Did the trial court commit error in sustaining the general demurrer to the third-amended petition of plaintiff and in entering final judgment against plaintiff? A reading and statement of the facts found in thp petition, well pleaded, hence by the demurrer admitted, may be summarized as follows;

Defendant corporation is and was engaged in the business of manufacturing chemists, making drugs, medicines, and preparations of many kinds, and in advertising and selling the same to retail druggists and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
  3. Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
  4. Coughtry v. . Globe Woolen Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
  5. Wellington v. Downer Kerosene Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1985
  2. State Ex Rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. KarlWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. United States Radiator Corporation v. HendersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
  4. Russo v. Merck & Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1956
  5. Borg-Warner Corp. v. HeineCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942

3 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