{
  "id": 8554892,
  "name": "BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. BRAND DISTRIBUTORS OF NORTH WILKESBORO, INC., a corporation, and ROBERT YALE; BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. MOTOR MARKET, INC., a corporation d/b/a BOB'S JEWELRY & LOAN, and ROBERT YALE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1974-02-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7423SC142",
  "first_page": "648",
  "last_page": "649",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 648"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 S.E. 2d 528",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N.C. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596290
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0163-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2206,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0958850690822826e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7610107770761925
    },
    "sha256": "34a164541ffaa876860ca76a2aba223a33999bc6f3b4083b74435c0423ee76f0",
    "simhash": "1:39db5e4617299b60",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. BRAND DISTRIBUTORS OF NORTH WILKESBORO, INC., a corporation, and ROBERT YALE BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. MOTOR MARKET, INC., a corporation d/b/a BOB\u2019S JEWELRY & LOAN, and ROBERT YALE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendants\u2019 appeal has merit only if G.S. Chapter 66, Art. 10, the \u201cFair Trade Act,\u201d is invalid as to them. The case directly involves a substantial question arising under the constitution. See G.S. 7A-30.\nMore than thirty-four years ago, our Supreme Court, Justice Barnhill dissenting, held that the \u201cFair Trade Act\u201d was valid and constitutional. Lilly & Co. v. Saunders, 216 N.C. 163, 4 S.E. 2d 528. Until that opinion is modified or superseded by the Supreme Court, we are bound by it, although we consider much of defendants\u2019 argument to be sound. The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage and Preston by Mark R. Bernstein and W. Samuel Woodard for plaintiff wppellee.",
      "W. G. Mitchell and McElwee & Hall by John E. Hall, attorneys for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. BRAND DISTRIBUTORS OF NORTH WILKESBORO, INC., a corporation, and ROBERT YALE BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. MOTOR MARKET, INC., a corporation d/b/a BOB\u2019S JEWELRY & LOAN, and ROBERT YALE\nNo. 7423SC142\n(Filed 6 February 1974)\nMonopolies \u00a7 1\u2014 Fair Trade Act \u2014 validity and constitutionality\nThe Fair Trade Act is valid and constitutional, and the trial court properly entered judgment enjoining defendants from selling plaintiff\u2019s product at prices less than the minimum prices established by plaintiff\u2019s fair trade agreements and from otherwise violating plaintiff\u2019s system under the Fair Trade Act.\nAppeal by defendants from Rousseau, Judge, 10 September 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Wilkes County.\nPlaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from violating plaintiff\u2019s fair trade agreements in North Carolina. Defendants have not signed any agreement with plaintiff and have not purchased merchandise from plaintiff. The relevant facts were stipulated and are sufficient to establish a violation of the plaintiff\u2019s fair trade agreements.\nDefendants appealed from a judgment enjoining them from selling plaintiff\u2019s product at prices less than minimum prices established by plaintiff\u2019s fair trade agreements and from otherwise violating plaintiff\u2019s system under the Fair Trade Act.\nGrier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage and Preston by Mark R. Bernstein and W. Samuel Woodard for plaintiff wppellee.\nW. G. Mitchell and McElwee & Hall by John E. Hall, attorneys for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0648-01",
  "first_page_order": 676,
  "last_page_order": 677
}