Legal Opinion

May v. Young

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 1, 1938PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHinman', J.

The plaintiff is an industrial engineering firm engaged in the business of installing systems covering sales and administrative expenses, budgets, accounting and cost methods, overhead rates, factory clerical, direct and indirect labor, production planning and scheduling, inventories and other cost elements. It was organized in 1925 and has since served seventeen hundred business firms in forty-four states and in Canada. Its systems are installed by a specially qualified and trained personnel, and a particular job may last one month or many depending on the extent of the work undertaken. It…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Sherman v. PfefferkornMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  3. Samuel Stores, Inc. v. AbramsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
  4. Granger v. CravenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  5. Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1902

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Weiss v. WiederlightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp.Indiana Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
  4. Norwalk Door Closer Co. v. Eagle Lock & Screw Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
  5. Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991

52 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