Legal Opinion

Bowles v. Cohn

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 29, 1944PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAFFEY, District Judge.

The articles in controversy are handkerchiefs. The plaintiff seeks an injunction pendente lite against the defendant selling or delivering those articles unless and until he prepares, keeps and makes available (1) a base period statement, (2) current pricing records and (3) customary sales records.

The complaint, in general terms (paragraph 1), charges that the defendant violated the General Maximum Price Regulation, hereinafter called the regulation. It also claims (paragraph 7) that the violations consisted of failures by the defendant (1) on or before July 1, 1942, to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  3. Knapp v. CallawayDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  4. Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bowles v. McCrady Const. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
  2. Bowles v. OrcurtoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1944
  3. Porter v. BermanDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API