Magid v. Tannenbaum

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• court is not bound by admission that services are unique or extraordinary or consent to an injunction in the case of a breach, and must instead look to the facts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Purchasing Associates, Inc. v. Weitz
  New York Court of Appeals· 1963-12-30· cited 160×
• Ticor Title Insurance Co. Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Kenneth C. Cohen
  Second Circuit· 1999-03-31· cited 151×
• Amory H. Bradford v. The New York Times Company
  Second Circuit· 1974-06-21· cited 57×
• Menter Co. v. Brock
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1920-12-24· cited 45×
• Creator's Way Associated Labels, Inc. v. Mitchell (In Re Mitchell)
  S.D. New York· 2000-05-24· cited 7×
• Clark Paper & Manufacturing Co. v. Stenacker
  New York Supreme Court· 1917-05-15· cited 1×
• Frederick Brothers Artists Corp. v. Yates
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1946-06-14

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Dockstader v. Reed
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1907-11-22· cited 17×
• Geo. A. Kessler & Co. v. Chappelle
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1902-07-01· cited 8×
• Hammerstein v. Mann
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1910-04-08· cited 6×