Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

California Ass'n of Dispensing Opticians v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 27, 1983No. Civ. 28420PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

STANIFORTH, J.

Plaintiffs California Association of Dispensing Opticians (CADO) et al., sought to enjoin defendants Pearle Vision Center, Inc. (Pearle) et al., from violating California statutes regulating the practice of dispensing opticians, optometrists and optical suppliers. The California State Board of Optometry (Board) intervened as a plaintiff in CADO’s lawsuit. A temporary restraining order was issued enjoining Pearle from operating several retail optician outlets without a license, engaging in certain types of advertising and con- tinning solicitation of optometrists to…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Goldfarb v. Virginia State BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. People v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. GaramendiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Bullock v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  4. LensCrafters, Inc. v. SundquistTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  5. DVD Copy Control Ass'n Inc. v. BunnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API