Legal Opinion

State v. Ritholz

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 22, 1960No. 37,755PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Magney, Commissioner.

Defendants are a partnership with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the business of grinding eye glasses in accordance with the customer’s prescription and fitting them into frames. The partnership maintains offices in several states, two in Minnesota. At the instance of the State Board of Optometry, the state brought action to restrain and enjoin defendant partnership from soliciting business by advertisements containing “price advertising,” contrary to the laws of the State of Minnesota. Upon motion, the service of the summons and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Minnesota Wood Specialties, Inc. v. George S. May Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1954

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Brooks v. INTERNAT. BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, ETC.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  2. Antiel v. V.W.E. InvestmentsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  3. Danov v. ABC Freight Forwarding Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  4. State v. RitholzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  5. Kotschevar v. Township of North ForkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949

2 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