Legal Opinion

Haynes v. United Chemical Workers, CIO No. 288

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1950PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett

The bill in this cause sought injunctive relief only. The Chancellor dismissed the bill because there was no equity on the face thereof. The complainants have seasonably perfected their appeal and all the parties in interest have filed well prepared briefs, and have ably argued the matter before the Court.

The brief of Carbide & Carbon states the substance of the bill fairly, as follows:

“In substance, the allegations of the bill are that the complainants were members of the defendant union and employees of the defendant company; that since December 9, 1946, the union, as bargaining agent for a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727 v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Tennessee Title Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nTennessee Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Wallace v. McPhersonTennessee Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  2. Arnold v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1960
  3. Bryan v. International AllianceCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1957
  4. Alfred Dowdy v. Willie Joe AlexanderCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
  5. Johnson v. Union Carbide Nuclear Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1962

1 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