Legal Opinion

E. W. Bruno Co. v. Friedberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 2, 1964PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBotein, P. J.

Plaintiff corporation is engaged in the import and export of a variety of merchandise. Among the commodities which it imported and distributed in this country were hairbrushes bearing the trade name 6 ‘ Royal Sweden ’ ’, purchased from a Swedish manufacturing concern referred to by the parties as Husqvarna. Though plaintiff had no exclusive rights to the American distribution of Husqvarna’s output, it had for a decade been the latter’s only American customer for hairbrushes. Over the years, through the medium of a small number of employees and independent sales representatives, plaintiff…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Duane Jones Co. v. BurkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
  2. Lamdin v. Broadway Surface Advertising Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Community Counselling Service, Incorporated v. Robert Benedict ReillyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
  4. Dad's Root Beer Co. v. Doc's Beverages, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
  5. Michel Cosmetics, Inc. v. TsirkasNew York Court of Appeals · 1940

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Maritime Fish Products, Inc. v. World-Wide Fish Products, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Walter Karl, Inc. v. WoodAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  3. Talvy v. American Red Cross in Greater New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  4. Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
  5. Whitney Holdings, Ltd. v. GivotovskyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997

18 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