Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Ferris

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 14, 1940PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.

The defendant, describing himself as a dispensing optician, advertised in a newspaper over his name and address as follows: "Eyeglasses complete! White single vision lenses and frames. Complete for only $5. Your choice of ten modern style frames only $2.50. We believe our prices to be those below any competitor.”

G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 112, § 73A, inserted by St. 1937, c. 287, provides that no person, in connection with the sale of eyeglasses, lenses or eyeglass frames, shall include in any advertisement (a) "any statement advertising a frame or mounting at a fixed price unless a further…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Louis K. Liggett Co. v. BaldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  5. Roschen v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1929

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. Commonwealth v. Town of HudsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  3. Webster v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Merit Oil Co. v. Director of the Division on the Necessaries of LifeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  5. State v. RonesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1953

27 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