Legal Opinion
Mercury Marketing Technologies of Delaware, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Beebe
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided July 1, 2004No. 03-1382PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Robert L. Brown, Justice.
Appellants, Mercury Marketing Technologies e. Delaware, Inc., GoInternet.Net, Inc., Neal Saferstein, Arthur Cohen, and Robert Rosenkranz (jointly referred to as Mercury), appeal from the circuit court’s injunction restraining and enjoining it from conducting its telemarketing business in Arkansas.1 Mercury asserts four points on appeal. We affirm the order of the circuit court.
On November 12, 2002, the appellee, the State of Arkansas, which was represented by the State Attorney General, filed a complaint alleging a cause of action against Mercury under the Arkansas…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Mass. CrincMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- State Ex Rel. McGraw v. Imperial MarketingWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Pickett v. FergusonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Villines v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
- Three Sisters Petroleum, Inc. v. LangleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. HutchinsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2015
- Houghton v. Department of HealthUtah Supreme Court · 2005
- Southern College of Naturopathy v. State Ex Rel. BeebeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
- Mercury Marketing Technologies of Delaware, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. BeebeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2004