Legal Opinion

Tomsky v. Clark

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 29, 1925No. Docket No. 4920PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.

Plaintiffs, Samuel C. Tomsky and Lee Andrew Cole, as copartners doing business under the firm name of Eauer Collection Company, and the corporate defendant, Eauer’s Law and Collection Company, Inc., of which the individual defendants Eoy E. Clark, J. J. Eauer and H. S. Smith are officers and stockholders, are engaged in the same kind of business in the city and county of San Francisco, that of collecting debts. Plaintiffs commenced this action to enjoin said defendants from using the name “Rauer’s Law and Collection Company, Inc.” in connection with said corporate defendant’s business. All…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  3. Meneely v. . MeneelyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  4. Fisher v. . Star Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
  5. Dodge Stationery Co. v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd.District Court, S.D. California · 1945
  2. MacSweeney Enterprises, Inc. v. TarantinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Visser v. MacResCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. MacSweeney Enterprises, Inc. v. TarantinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Ida May Co., Inc. v. EnsignCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

6 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