Legal Opinion

Canepa v. "John Doe"

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 18, 1938PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

The complaint sufficiently alleges that the picketing by the defendants is part of a true secondary . boycott and an unlawful interference with the business of the plaintiff (Goldfinger v. Feintuch, 276 N. Y. 281.) Whether or not the case is one “ involving or growing out of a labor dispute ” as these terms are defined by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, the complaint is sufficient.

The order should be affirmed, without costs. The first question certified is not answered and the second question is answered in the affirmative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Goldfinger v. FeintuchNew York Court of Appeals · 1937

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. BellowsNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  2. Alliance Auto Service, Inc. v. CohenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Mayer Bros. Poultry Farms v. MeltzerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  4. Weil & Co. v. "John Doe"New York Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. v. HawleyNew York Supreme Court · 1941

6 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