Legal Opinion

Werblud v. Mehadrin Dairy Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1957PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBenjamin Brenner, J.

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice upon the ground that the three causes of action set forth in the amended complaint are legally insufficient.

The first cause of action is one for fraud and deceit. It alleges in substance that defendant Mehadrin Dairy Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Mehadrin), in order to prevent competition in the sale of creamery products, fraudulently induced the plaintiff, by means of false representations, to break off separate negotiations with two named individuals for the sale to them of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Adams v. . GilligNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Ochs v. . WoodsNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. Sager v. FriedmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  4. Winter v. . American Aniline Products, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. Todd v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Clearview Concrete Products Corp. v. S. Charles Gherardi, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  2. Stark Ritchie v. Ralph LandauCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
  3. Bayview General Hospital v. Associated Hospital ServiceNew York Supreme Court · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API