Foutts v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers & Cosmetologists' International Union
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
The provisions of the 1936 agreement, under which plaintiff claims a right to continued use of the union shop card, negative the existence of that light in the instant case. In that agreement, he specifically agreed to comply with all conditions imposed in the rules governing shop cards printed on the back of the shop card, and agreed that the card should remain the property of the defendant, that it was loaned to the plaintiff only during such time as those conditions were fulfilled by the plaintiff, and that plaintiff would on demand peaceably allow the defendant union to remove the shop…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. HankeSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Riviello v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers & Cosmetologists' International Union of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Crosby v. RathOhio Supreme Court · 1940
- Saveall v. DemersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Messner v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers & Cosmetologists, International Union of America, Local 256California Supreme Court · 1960
- Journeymen Barbers' International Union, Local 687 v. PollinoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
- DiLeo v. DaneaultMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
- Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists, & Proprietors International Union of America, Local Union No. 205 v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1953
- TM HEAD v. Local Union No. 83, Journeymen BarbersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.