Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 158 A.2d 528 (N.J. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 158 A.2d 528 (N.J. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 366 U.S. 276 (1961)
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960 1993 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
31 N.J. at 591 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 366 U.S. 276 (1961).published 2 cites
    Super. 291, 302, 154 A. 2d 650, 656 . [5] 31 N. J. 591, 158 A. 2d 528 . [6] 364 U. S. 860 . [7] See, e. g., Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47 ; International Textbook Co. v. Pigg. 217 U. S. 91 ; Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197 . […
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
SAV-ON-DRUGS, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mar 7, 1960.
Published opinion
158 A.2d 528
1960 N.J. LEXIS 257
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Mr. Melvin P. Antell argued the cause for the appellant (Messrs. Lorentz & Stamler, attorneys).

Mr. Warren E. Dunn argued the cause for the defendant-respondent (Messrs. Lum, Fairlie & Foster, attorneys; Mr. Claus Motulsky, of the New York bar, on the brief).

Mr. Murry Brochin argued the cause for the State of New Jersey, intervenor (Mr. David D. Furman, attorney).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Scherer in the court below.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices BURLING, JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR and SCHETTINO — 6.

For reversal — Justice HALL — 1.