Kronowitz v. Schlansky
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSteinbrink, J.
Here is presented a motion to punish defendants for contempt in having violated the injunctive provisions embodied in a final judgment dated September 17, 1934, in a suit arising out of a labor dispute.
Under one of the recently enacted labor injunction statutes (Civ. Prac. Act, § 876-a, subd. 8, added by Laws of 1935, chap. 477, in effect April 25, 1935) preliminary objection was made to the court entertaining the motion, defendant's counsel urging that the injunction had lapsed since more than six months had passed since it was issued. This contention is unsound and, therefore, dismissed for…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Michaelson v. United States Ex Rel. Chicago, St. P., M. & OR Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Southern Railway Co. v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- People Ex Rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La FetraNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Starr v. Laundry & Dry Cleaning-Worker's Local Union No. 101Oregon Supreme Court · 1936
- Latham Enterprises, Inc. v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1960
- De Agostina v. HolmdenNew York Supreme Court · 1935