Ritholz v. City of Salt Lake
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
CROCKETT, Justice.
Price advertising of eyeglasses is prohibited by an ordinance of Salt Lake City. Its validity is here challenged.
Plaintiffs operate King Optical Company in Salt Lake City in which they sell eyeglasses to customers on prescription of licensed doctors and eye specialists.1 They engage in public advertising including the running of ads in local newspapers that they will sell any eyeglasses for the- uniform price of $8.98, which is conceded to be in violation of a Salt Lake City ordinance. The parts material to the attack here made upon it are as follows;
“No person, firm, [etc.]…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- State v. RonesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1953
- Ritholz v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1945
- Salt Lake City v. SutterUtah Supreme Court · 1923
- Wadsworth v. Santaquin CityUtah Supreme Court · 1933
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Jensen Ex Rel. Jensen v. CunninghamUtah Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. HutchinsonUtah Supreme Court · 1980
- Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. Salt Lake County Board of EqualizationUtah Supreme Court · 2012
- Redd v. Western Savings & Loan Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1982
- Christensen v. Lelis Automatic Transmission Service, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1970
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.