WILLIAM V. JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARSHALL FIELD AND COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees. — (RONALD S. BAILIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GOLDBLATT BROTHERS; INC. et al., Defendants-Appellees.)
Appellate Court of Illinois — First District.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
November 29, 1972.
November 29, 1972.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Stewart I. Gartner and Frank Glazer, both of Chicago, for appellants.
For appellees in Johnson v. Marshall Field and Co.:
Wilson & McIlvaine, of Chicago, (Kent Chandler, Jr. and Robert F. Forrer, of counsel,) for appellee Marshall Field and Co.
McDermott, Will & Emery, of Chicago, (Hamilton Smith and William G. Migely, of counsel,) for appellees Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Jewel Co.
Hopkins, Sutter, Owen, Mulroy & Davis, of Chicago, (Thomas W. Mulroy, Robert W. Patterson, and Michael F. Duhl, of counsel,) for appellee Montgomery Ward & Co.
Sidley & Austin, of Chicago, (J. Robert Barr and J. Douglas Donerfeld, of counsel,) for appellees Carson Pirie Scott & Co. and National Tea Co.
For appellees in Bailis v. Goldblatt Brothers, Inc.:
Arvey, Hodes & Mantynband, of Chicago, (Herman Smith, of counsel,) for appellees Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. and Walgreen Co.
Fiffer & D'Angelo, of Chicago, (Alan N. Lasky, of counsel,) for appellee Steinberg-Baum Co.
Crowley, Barrett & Karaba, of Chicago, (Edward W. Barrett, of counsel,) for appellee Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc.
Morton Siegel, of Chicago, for appellee Armanetti, Inc.
Williams and Leonard, Ltd., of Chicago, (Robert F. Sharp, of counsel,) for appellee F.W. Woolworth Co.
Bernard Rosencranz, of Chicago, for appellee Goldblatt Bros., Inc.
James E. Manning, of Chicago, for appellee High-Low Foods, Inc.
Jack Edward Dwork, of Chicago, for appellee Kroch's & Brentano's Inc.
Appellate Court of Illinois — First District.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiffs appeal from an order entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County on April 8, 1971, dismissing Count II of their complaint. Count II of the complaint was brought by the plaintiffs individually and as members of the class of persons they represent, to recover that sum of money in excess of the 4% Use Tax charged...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
