Legal Opinion

Hammerberg v. Leinert

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 6, 1946PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The plaintiff as milk administrator brought this action under the Milk Marketing Act (General Statutes, Sup. 1941, Chap. 107b), alleging the defendant’s refusal to pay amounts due to his producers, under the plaintiff’s order issued by virtue of the act, for the period from February, 1942, to April, 1943, and asking an injunction to compel the defendant to comply therewith. From the court’s judgment for the defendant denying the injunctive relief sought, the plaintiff has appealed.

The essential facts are undisputed. The defendant is a “dealer” under the act, § 335f, engaged in buying, selling…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. Rock Royal Co-Operative, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Bailey v. TaaffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  3. State Ex Rel. State Board of Milk Control v. Newark Milk Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
  4. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Taylor v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1907

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Sturman v. SochaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  2. State v. McKnightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  3. Pasquariello v. PasquarielloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
  4. State v. OnofrioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  5. Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970

38 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