Legal Opinion
Automatic Fire Alarm Co. v. Bowles
Emergency Court of Appeals
Decided July 3, 1944No. 105PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARIS, Chief Judge.
The complainants are three corporations engaged in New York, Philadelphia and Boston, respectively, in the business of rendering fire alarm protective service. One of them also furnishes burglar alarm service.
On August 4, 1943, the Price Administrator amended Section 1499.101(c) of Maximum Price Regulation No. 165 — Services, by adding to the services to which the Regulation applies the following additional services: ■
“(66) Equipment used for the detection of, and protection against fire, theft, burglary and sabotage (including but not limited to fire alarms, burglar…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Matter of Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. McGoldrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- State v. Standard Oil Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Missouri Dist. Telegraph Co. v. Morris & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917
3Cited by7 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pan American Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1969
- Queen Insurance Company of America v. CreacyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970
- Heesy v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Heesy v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Parker v. PorterEmergency Court of Appeals · 1946
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.