Legal Opinion

Heflebower v. Sand

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided March 28, 1947No. Civil Action 1584PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOYCE, District Judge.

This is an action to enjoin defendants from competing in the beauty supply business for a period of five years within the confines of certain territories. As to defendant Henry Sand, the action is based upon a restrictive covenant contained in a partnership agreement between him and plaintiffs Hefiebower and Koch. The remaining individual defendants are joined as fellow conspirators of Henry Sand in an alleged plot to avoid the restrictive covenant and appropriate the former partnership’s business by forming the defendant corporation. Plaintiffs also seek $50,000…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Diamond Match Co. v. . RoeberNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  2. Granger v. CravenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  3. Menter Co. v. BrockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  4. Eureka Laundry Co. v. LongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Ropes v. UptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
  2. Arthur Murray Dance Studios of Cleveland, Inc. v. WitterCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1952
  3. Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp.Indiana Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Robert E. Hedberg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965
  5. Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964

4 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