Legal Opinion

Mosig v. Jersey Chiropodists, Inc.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 1, 1937PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The bill alleges that defendant corporation is practicing chiropody without a license, contrary to the provisions of "An act to regulate the practice of chiropody, to license chiropodists and to punish persons violating the provisions thereof" (P.L. 1908 p. 391; Comp. Stat. p. 3338, as amended), and prays that defendant be enjoined from continuing such unlawful practice.

The first question is whether complainants or any of them can maintain the suit, even though the charge of the bill be true. Two of the complainants are licensed chiropodists, the third is the Chiropodists Society of the State…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Olsen v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Fitchette v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  3. Childs v. SmeltzerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Paul v. StanleyWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Unger v. Landlords' Management Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. In Re Lead Paint LitigationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  2. Delaware Optometric Corporation v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Delaware · 1957
  3. Burden v. HooverIllinois Supreme Court · 1956
  4. NJ Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
  5. Cook v. Normac Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1939

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

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

Powered by the Exa API