Legal Opinion

Seligman v. Toledo Moving Pictures Operators Union, Local 228

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 17, 1947No. 4244PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConn, J.

Plaintiff filed his petition in the Court of Common Pleas for an injunction against defendants, seeking to restrain and enjoin them from interfering with plaintiff in securing a position as a motion picture machine operator within the jurisdiction of defendant local union and, further, that defendants be required to accord plaintiff all the rights of membership in the defendant union and that he may recover actual and exemplary damages. However, no evidence of pecuniary damage and the amount thereof having been offered by plaintiff and there having been no discussion of same in brief or oral…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. James v. Marinship Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Williams v. International Brotherhood of BoilermakersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Wilson v. Newspaper, C., UnionNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938
  4. International Union of Steam & Operating Engineers v. OwensOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Thompson v. Moore Drydock Co.California Supreme Court · 1946

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Falcone v. Middlesex County Medical SocietySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
  2. Campbell v. Brotherhood of Railroad TrainmenOhio Court of Appeals · 1965
  3. Havens v. Detroit Motion Picture ProjectionistsMichigan Supreme Court · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API