Legal Opinion
Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Martin
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided February 28, 1936No. 569PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCushman, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The foregoing statement does not include trial amendments of the bill of complaint filed after the hearing, for the reason that, because of the conclusion reached, added statement is unnecessary.
The motion of the defendants to strike certain of the allegations of the bill of complaint will be denied.
The motion to dismiss, in so far as it is stated in paragraphs I and II of the motion, will be denied without discussion.
The statutes of which particular complaint is made, section 2 of chapter 158, p. 499 of the Session Laws of 1935 (Rem.Rev. Stat.Wash. § 7306 —…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Joseph Triner Corporation v. ArundelDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1935
- Young's Market Co. v. State Board of EqualizationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1935
- Premier-Pabst Sales Corporation v. GrosscupDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1935
3Cited by8 opinions
- Granholm v. HealdSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- State Bd. of Equalization of Cal. v. Young's Market Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Zukaitis v. FitzgeraldDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1936
- Dugan v. BridgesDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.