Legal Opinion
Klein v. . Maravelas
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 15, 1916PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
This case makes it necessary for us to say whether the so-called sales in bulk law is a constitutional enactment (Personal Prop. Law, § 44, L. 1914, ch. 507; Cons. Laws, ch. 41). A very similar law was enacted in 1904 (L. 1904, ch. 569). InWright v. Hart ([1905] 182 N.Y. 330) we held it to be unconstitutional. We said that it violated the federal constitution in denying to merchants the equal protection of the laws. We said that it violated both the federal and the state constitution in imposing arbitrary restrictions upon liberty of contract. That decision was reached by a closely divided…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Noble State Bank v. HaskellSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Otis v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Wright v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Lemieux v. Young, TrusteeSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Woods v. LancetNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Flanagan v. Mount Eden General HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Gregoire v. G. P. Putnam's SonsNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
- People v. . Beakes Dairy Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Roman v. LobeNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.