Legal Opinion

Baldwin v. Hegeman Farms Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1934PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRussell, J.

This action is brought to restrain defendant from continuing or engaging in or being interested in the purchase of milk and cream from producers or from a co-operative association contrary to article 21 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (Laws of 1934, chap. 126).

The plaintiff has served what he designates as a supplemental and amended complaint. He now moves for an injunction pendente lite. Defendant makes a cross-motion to dismiss the supplemental and amended complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

In so far as this complaint amends…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bartlett v. CrozierCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1820
  2. Austin v. . GoodrichNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  3. Millard v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  4. Rosenstock v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  5. Harbison v. PropperNew York Supreme Court · 1920

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. YoungOregon Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Marriott v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1945
  3. Provisional Government of French Republic v. CabotDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
  4. In re the Arbitration between Calka & Tobin Packing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Emanuels v. Rochester Packing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1943

1 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