Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Keuffel & Esser v. International Ass'n of Machinists

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided January 26, 1922Published

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery.

1ConcurrenceWhite, J.

As has been pointed out it is in effect admitted that the “picketing” in this case abounded in almost all conceivable elements of intimidation, but it is urged that these elements might have been, although they in fact were not, absent, and that, therefore, “picketing” as such should not have been enjoined. This contention raises in my mind the query, “What is the essential and fundamental purpose and effect of ‘picketing’ as practiced in strike controversies?” for, obviously, it is the intended and actual consequence of the practice which is decisive rather than the ordinary meaning of the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Vegelahn v. GuntnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  2. Franklin Union No. 4 v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Beck v. Railway Teamsters' Protective UnionMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Pierce v. Stablemen's Local 8760California Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Goldberg, Bowen & Co. v. Stablemen's Local 8760California Supreme Court · 1906

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API