Legal Opinion

E. H. Renzel Co. v. Ware-Housemen's Union I. L. A. 38-44

California Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1940No. S. F. 15923PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

At the suit of the respondent, a corporation engaged in the wholesale grocery business, the appellants were enjoined from picketing its place of business, and, also, from conducting a secondary boycott by representing to its customers that it “is unfair to organized labor”.

Upon the filing of the verified complaint, a temporary restraining order issued and when the matter came on for hearing in response to an order to show cause, testimony was offered and received from both sides. This procedure was apparently by agreement that the facts determinative of the right to an injunction pendente…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Willis v. LauridsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. People v. SeccombeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  3. Davitt v. American Bakers' UnionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Mechs' Foundry of San Francisco v. RyallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Caifornia Navigation Co. v. Union Transportation Co.California Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Continental Baking Co. v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Finnie v. Town of TiburonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  4. Kaplan's Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. TRIPLE a MACHINE SHOP, INC v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

22 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