Legal Opinion
Stephens v. Bean
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 26, 1924No. Civ. No. 2699PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
The defendant has appealed from a judgment restraining him “from further engaging in the undertaking business, or business similar thereto, in the city of Fresno, so long as plaintiffs, or any person deriving title to the good will of said business from plaintiffs, carry on said or like business in said city of Fresno.”
There is no substantial conflict in the evidence. For many years the plaintiffs and defendant were partners in the business of general undertakers and funeral directors in the city of Fresno, under the firm name of Stephens & Bean. On the thirty-first day of May, 1919, the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Moore & Handley Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- City Carpet Beating Etc. Works v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Gregory v. SpiekerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Grogan v. ChaffeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Brown v. KlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- General Paint Corp. v. SeymourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Mahlstedt v. FugitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Hill Medical Corporation v. WycoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Loescher v. PolickySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969
- Roberts v. PfeferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.