History
  • No items yet
midpage
Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros.
299 N.Y. 795
NY
1949
Check Treatment

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: “The following question under the Constitution and laws of the United States was presented and necessarily passed upon: ‘ Whether Article 24-A of the General Business Law is inconsistent with the Miller-Tydings Amend*796ment to the Sherman Act (U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 1) if construed to permit suits by non-signatories and against non-signatories of “ fair trade ” contracts relating to commodities in interstate commerce ’. This Court held such construction of Article 24-A of the General Business Law of New York to be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” [See 299 N. Y. 636.]

Case Details

Case Name: Calamia v. Goldsmith Bros.
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jul 19, 1949
Citation: 299 N.Y. 795
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.