Legal Opinion
Joseph Triner Corp. v. Mahoney
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided October 23, 1937No. Nos. 2836, 2839PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
These are the same suits in which this court granted preliminary injunctions on June 29, 1935. Triner Corp. v. Arundel, 11 F.Supp. 145. The fact situation remains unchanged except for the substitution of the present defendants for their predecessors in office. The facts are sufficiently stated in our opinion granting the preliminary injunctions and will not be repeated. The plaintiffs are wholesalers and licensed to sell liquor in the state of Minnesota.
Chapter 390 of the Laws of Minnesota 1935 provides: “No licensed manufacturer or wholesaler shall import any brand or brands of intoxicating…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State Bd. of Equalization of Cal. v. Young's Market Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Brown-Forman Co. v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Kidd v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Joseph Triner Corporation v. ArundelDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1935
- Young's Market Co. v. State Board of EqualizationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1935
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- George Benz Sons, Inc. v. EricsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1938
- George Benz Sons, Inc. v. EricsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Dunn v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.