Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. (1954)

The nature of the problem will determine whether we are to take one viewpoint or the other." 89 We have considered the great emphasis placed by appellants on two California cases, interpreting the State Cart-wright Act: Milton v. Hudson Sales Corp., 1957, 152 Cal.App.2d 418, 440 , 313 P.2d 936 , and Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 1954, 129 Cal.App. 2d 844 , 849, 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 .

The nature of the problem will determine whether we are to take one viewpoint or the other.” We have considered the great emphasis placed by appellants on two California cases, interpreting the State Cartwright Act: Milton v. Hudson Sales Corp., 1957, 152 Cal.App.2d 418, 440 , 313 P.2d 936 , and Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 1954, 129 Cal.App. 2d 844 , 849, 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 .

(Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1013 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 40 , 884 P.2d 988 ]; County of Imperial v. McDougal (1977) 19 Cal.3d 505, 513 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 472 , 564 P.2d 14 ]; A. F. Estabrook Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1918) 177 Cal. 767, 771 [ 177 P. 848 ]; Prince v. Hill (1915) 170 Cal. 192, 195 [ 149 P. 578 ]; San Francisco v. Pacific Bank (1891) 89 Cal. 23, 25 [ 26 P. 615 ]; Kellogg v. Cochran (1890) 87 Cal. 192, 200 [ 25 P. 677 ]; Payne & Dewey v. Treadwe…

Although there is dictum supporting defendants’ first proposition in Rolley Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 846 [ 278 P.2d 63 ], and subsequent cases (e.g., Corwin, supra, 4 Cal.3d 842, 852 ), Rolley is based on a misunderstanding of Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946) 29 Cal.2d 34 [ 172 P.2d 867 ], in which Justice Traynor explained that the Cartwright Act “articulates in greater detail a public policy against restraint of trade that has l…

(See Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 846, 848 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ]; Kaplan v. Nalpak Corp. (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 197, 200-201 [ 322 P.2d 226 ]; City Carpet etc. Works v. Jones (1894) 102 Cal. 506, 510-511 [ 36 P. 841 ] [dealing with the statutory precursor of Bus. & Prof.

(See Rolley, Inc. v. Merle *69 Norman Cosmetics (1954) 129 Cal. App.2d 844, 846, 848 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ]; Kaplan v. Nalpak Corp. (1958) 158 Cal. App.2d 197, 200-201 [ 322 P.2d 226 ]; City Carpet etc. Works v. Jones (1894) 102 Cal. 506, 510-511 [ 36 P. 841 ] [dealing with the statutory precursor of Bus. & Prof.

“The court on appeal will not consider the sufficiency of a superseded complaint where the plaintiff has amended it after demurrer sustained.” (Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 852 [ 278 P.2d 63 ]; Hayter v. Fulmor (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 554, 562 [ 152 P.2d 746 ]; see Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 479 P.2d 362 ].) “An exception is recognized where there are allegations in the prior complaint destr…

Such portion of the opinion (with appropriate deletions and additions as indicated) is as follows : 2 We confine our attention herein to the most recently filed fourth amended complaint since “The court on appeal will not consider the sufficiency of a superseded complaint where the plaintiff has amended it after demurrer sustained.” (Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 852 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ].) We are, moreover, not concerned with the…

(Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 498 [ 84 L.Ed. 1311, 1325 , 60 S.Ct. 982, 995 , 128 A.L.R. 1044 ] ; Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 849 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ].) Therefore, federal cases interpreting the Sherman Act are applicable to the Cartwright Act.

(Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 852 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ].) In so doing,' however, we resort to the entire record on appeal which includes all pleadings properly filed in the present case and certain items from the court’s files pertaining to a related prior proceeding 2 of which we are entitled to take judicial notice.

(Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 852 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ] and eases there cited.) Instead of standing upon their original complaint and going to trial thereon, plaintiffs elected to amend their pleading in substance, thereby rendering the original complaint functus officio and granting the defendant the right to be served with the amended complaint (Code Civ.

Thus, the question presented is one of law (Roberts v. Fuquay-Varina Tobacco Board of Trade, Inc., 223 F.Supp. 212, 214 ), namely, whether the trial court applied the proper standard to essentially undisputed facts. 7 (United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 44-45 [ 80 S.Ct. 503 , 4 L.Ed.2d 505 ].) Cases decided under the federal Sherman Anti-Trust Act 8 and the common law policy against restraint of trade are applicable to problems arising under the Cartwright Act…

(Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 851 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ].) From the mere fact of Calvert’s refusal to sell plaintiffs, no inference of unlawful agreement can arise for the reason that a producer “may lawfully select his own customers.” (Johnson v. J.

As was pointed out by Mr. Justice Dooling in Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, *441 Inc., 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 851 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ], the Clayton Act is broader in its prohibitions than the Sherman Act, and, in the same respects, is broader than the Cartwright Act, so “that cases based on the Clayton Act are inapplicable here.” Before discussing the case law applicable to the problem presented some mention should be made about the order in which the various…

The Sherman Act also is described as an embodiment or restatement of the common law. ( Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 498 [ 60 S.Ct. 982 , 84 L.Ed. 1311 , 128 A.L.R. 1044 ]; see also Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, 129 Cal. App.2d 844, 849 [ 278 P.2d 63 , 282 P.2d 991 ].) The Supreme Court of the United States has twice expressly declined to hold that the practice of medicine constitutes "trade or commerce" within the meaning of that statute. ( American Me…