Legal Opinion

Pacific Typesetting Co. v. International Typographical Union

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1923No. 17197PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMackintosh, J.

The amended complaint of the appellant contains these allegations: that the plaintiff was the owner of a linotype, monotype and printing plant, valued at about $30,000, and in the operation of the plant employs a number of workmen, who were membeis of the International Typographical Union; that the business was increasing in volume, a substantial portion of which consisted of furnishing printing establis.iments with linotyping and mono typing; that the respondent International Typographical Union was a voluntary association, with many members, and that it was impracticable to bring all of…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  4. Pickett v. WalshMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
  5. J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Calbom v. KnudtzonWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Jardine v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. City of Seattle v. BlumeWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. American Medical Ass'n v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
  5. Hazen v. National Rifle Ass'n of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938

26 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