Legal Opinion
Mathews Paint Co. v. Seaside Paint & Lacquer Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 30, 1957No. Civ. 21792PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.
The present action is against Harold Fried-land and Bernard Paul Friedland doing business as Seaside Paint and Lacquer Company, Martin Goldflam and H. M. Rousselot, against whom an injunction is sought compelling the defendants to cease doing business with former customers of plaintiff. The complaint also seeks an accounting of profits derived by defendants from business done with plaintiff’s former customers. Demurrers were sustained to plaintiff’s second amended complaint with leave to amend; plaintiff declined to amend and the action was dismissed as to all defendants pursuant to the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Continental Car-Na-Var Corp. v. MoseleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- New Method Laundry Co. v. MacCannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- California Intelligence Bureau v. CunninghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Avocado Sales Co. v. WyseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Cornish v. DickeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal Co., a Corporation v. William Turley, an Individual and Hoffman Electronics Corporation, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Woodward Insurance, Inc. v. WhiteIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
- Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1958
- Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1986
- Eastern Distributing Co., Inc. v. FlynnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1977
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.