Legal Opinion
Newark Cleaning Dye Works v. Gross
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided April 30, 1925PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The complainant's customers are trades people — jobbers or middlemen — in the cleaning and dyeing business. They gather the trade, the complainant does the work. Hockberg, defendant, worked for the complainant six years as solicitor, when he quit to engage in a like business for himself. He is now competing, and motion is made to enjoin him from soliciting complainant's customers who were on his list and route while in the complainant's employ. There is no restrictive covenant, no artifice or fraud has been resorted to, nor has there been any unfair dealings or advantage taken, unless…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Clark Paper & Manufacturing Co. v. StenacherNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Empire Steam Laundry v. LozierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- People's Coat, Apron & Towel Supply Co. v. LightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Peerless Pattern Co. v. Pictorial Review Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- Fulton Grand Laundry Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1922
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Renpak, Inc. v. OppenheimerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
- SCM Corporation v. Triplett CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
- United Board & Carton Corp. v. BrittingNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
- Haut v. RossbachNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
- Scavengers Protective Ass'n v. Serv-U-Garbage Co.California Supreme Court · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.