Legal Opinion
Ashley v. Gimbel Bros.
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 28, 1938PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtHofstadter, J.
The cause of action in libel having been discontinued, the only questions to be determined are under the Civil Rights Law.
The plaintiff’s rights under the statute were violated. Mr. Justice McCook apparently believed that there was no ground for apprehending a repetition of the single publication — and he denied a temporary injunction. No good reason appears now for granting injunctive relief. (Nann v. Raimist, 255 N. Y. 307; Exchange Bakery & Restaurant, Inc., v. Rifkind, 245 id. 260; Shaw’s Jewelry Shop, Inc., v. New York Herald Co., 170 App. Div. 504; affd., 224 N. Y. 731; People v. Clark,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Binns v. Vitagraph Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
- Nann v. RaimistNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Di Menna v. . Cooper Evans Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Riddle v. . MacFaddenNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Goldey v. BiermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- LeFlore v. Reflections of Tulsa, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985