Legal Opinion

Carroll v. L. No. 269

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided March 30, 1943No. Docket 139/393PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Upon the filing of this bill on December 1st, 1941, an order was advised by the late Vice-Chancellor Buchanan directing the defendants to show cause why the injunctive relief prayed for in the bill should not be granted. I understand that an examination of the affidavits and the remarks of counsel induced the late Vice-Chancellor to believe that the alleged grievances could be readily adjusted by the parties. Evidently a complete abatement of differences did not eventuate.

The complainants are electrical construction workers. They comprise three groups. Some have been members of the defendant…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Brennan v. United Hatters of North America, Local No. 17Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1906
  2. Cameron v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes & Moving Picture Operators of the United States & Canada, Local Union No. 384Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
  3. Bayonne Textile Corp. v. American Federation of Silk WorkersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
  4. Christiansen v. Local 680, Milk Drivers, C.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
  5. Williams v. QuillNew York Court of Appeals · 1938

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. James v. Marinship Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Williams v. International Brotherhood of BoilermakersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Trautwein v. HarbourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
  4. Frazier v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
  5. Leeds v. HarrisonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950

18 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