Legal Opinion
Mead Johnson & Co. v. G-E-X Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 2, 1963PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtIsadore Bookstein, J.
This is an action for a permanent injunction to restrain defendant from violating the Fair Trade Law of this State, to wit, article XXIV-A of the General Business Law, and is brought pursuant to section 369-b thereof.
The following facts are not disputed:
Defendant is a noncontracting retailer. The licensee of its drug department has made sales of plaintiff’s products at prices below the minimum retail prices set by plaintiff, after notice of the existence of fair-trade contracts with other retailers. Defendant did not make such sales itself, but rather such sales were made by a separate…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Bristol-Myers Co. v. PickerNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Calvert Distillers Corp. v. Nussbaum Liquor Store, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1938
- General Electric Co. v. R. H. Macy & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1951
- Guerlain, Inc. v. F. W. Woolworth Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nifty Foods Corporation v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. And Pet IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- House of Seagram, Inc. v. Assam Drug Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
- Corning Glass Works v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- House of Seagram, Inc. v. Assam Drug Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1968