Legal Opinion
People v. Sterling Optical Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 8, 1960PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge Tilzer, J.
Motion by plaintiff for summary judgment. Cross motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to rules 106, 111 and 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, as to the first and second causes of action, to strike out the reply, and for judgment on the pleadings upon the first and second counterclaims, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the action and counterclaims.
The action was commenced to annul the corporate charter of the defendant corporation upon the grounds that it has engaged and still continues to engage in the unlawful practice of optometry and ophthalmic dispensing; to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Louis K. Liggett Co. v. BaldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Roschen v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Matter of Co-Operative Law Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Matter of Dickson v. FlynnNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Dickson v. FlynnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Marx v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity CompanyNebraska Supreme Court · 1968
- Wyoming State Board of Examiners of Optometry v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1989
- New York State Optometric Ass'n v. WhelanNew York Supreme Court · 1976
- New York State Optometric Ass'n v. WhelanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Sterling Optical Co. v. University of the StateNew York Supreme Court · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.