McGraw Electric Co. v. Lewis & Smith Drug Co.
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- General Electric Co. v. Superior Court (Cal. 1955)
- Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Cal. 1966)
- Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. Skaggs Pay Less Drug Stores (Cal. 1955)
- Upper Big Blue Natural Resources District v. City of Fremont (Neb. 1993)
- State v. Cavitt (Neb. 1968)
- Union Underwear Co. v. Aide (W. Va. 1967)
- American Home Products Corporation v. Homsey (Okla. 1961)
- General Electric Co. v. A. Dandy Appliance Co. (W. Va. 1958)
- General Electric Co. v. Wattle (Or. 1956)
- Sunbeam Corporation v. Masters of Miami, Inc. (5th Cir. 1955)
- Twin Loups Reclamation District v. Blessing (Neb. 1979)
- Lost Creek Drainage District v. Kring (Neb. 1975)
- Terry Carpenter, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission (Neb. 1963)
- State Ex Rel. Dawson County Feed Products, Inc. v. Omaha Public Power District (Neb. 1962)
- Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc. (Mont. 1961)
- Semrad v. Semrad (Neb. 1960)
- General Electric Co. v. Telco Supply, Inc. (Ariz. 1958)
- Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Bargain Fair, Inc. (Ohio 1958)
- Rogers-Kent, Inc. v. General Electric Co. (S.C. 1957)
- General Electric Company v. Wender (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1957)
- Blauvelt v. Beck (Neb. 1956)
- Peterson v. Vasak (Neb. 1956)
- General Electric Co. v. Thrifty Sales, Inc. (Utah 1956)
- Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v. Francis (Colo. 1956)
- Dr. G. H. Tichenor Antiseptic Co. v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets (La. 1956)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In order to clarify and correct the opinion adopted in this case the following is substituted for the first full paragraph as it appears at 159 Neb. 717, 68 N. W. 2d 616:
“An effect of this legislation is to permit one producer and one retailer to do on behalf of a class of retailers that which legally the class is forbidden to do as a class.”
The following, for the same purpose, is substituted for the third full paragraph as it appears at 159 Neb. 717, 68 N. W. 2d 616:
“It permits the impairment and destruction of the*320 right of any retailer, who has purchased any commodities for resale either before or after having received notice that an agreement fixing the minimum price for the resale thereof has been entered into by some other retailer, from freely selling such commodities to his customers.”
In all other respects the opinion shall remain as originally adopted.
Opinion modified. Motion FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.