Intl. Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 878 v. Blassingame
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentEd. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice
(Dissenting)'.
Tbe appellants were engaged in picketing an establishment where Terry Dairy products were being sold: there was no mass picketing and there was no violence. The .majority opinion in this case holds that the Chancery Court was correct in enjoining such picketing on the theory of a secondary boycott. I find myself unable to agree with that conclusion; hence this dissent.
There is a distinction between (a) a secondary boycott and (b) product picketing. A secondary boycott exists when the workmen on strike against one establishment attempt by picketing to induce the workmen of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Capital Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Fortenbury v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Goldfinger v. FeintuchNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.