Legal Opinion
Williams v. Quill
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 18, 1938PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Crane, Ch. J.
The counsel in this case, with commendable frankness, have narrowed the question to be decided to a single point. The contract which the defendants entered into, pursuant to section 704, subdivision 5, of the Labor Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 31), is conceded to be legal, except as to the New York Rapid Transit Corporation and the other defendants, and only illegal as to them because they furnish the only labor market locally for the plaintiffs.
After an election held among the employees of the defendant corporations on July 31, 1937, pursuant to the said Labor Law, the Labor Board…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Duplex Printing Press Co. v. DeeringSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Exchange Bakery & Restaurant, Inc. v. RifkinNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- National Protective Ass'n of Steam Fitters & Helpers v. CummingNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Curran v. . GalenNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- McKay v. Retail Automobile Salesmen's Local Union No. 1067California Supreme Court · 1940
- Otten v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Reinforce, Inc. v. BirneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- International Ass'n of MacHinists v. State Ex Rel. WatsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1943
- Carroll v. L. No. 269New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.