Legal Opinion

Weitzberg v. Dubinsky

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1940PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPecora, J.

In this action brought against two unions and an association of dress manufacturers, plaintiffs seek an injunction to restrain an alleged secondary boycott and an unlawful restraint of trade. In addition a judgment is asked declaring a certain “ accessory clause ” in a collective agreement illegal, void and unenforcible. A motion has been made by plaintiffs for a temporary injunction, and the defendants in two separate motions have asked for a dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiffs are manufacturers of covered buttons and kindred articles, conducting business in the city of New York. They sell…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Goldfinger v. FeintuchNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. Bossert v. . DhuyNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. American Fur Manufacturers Ass'n v. Associated Fur Coat & Trimming Manufacturers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
  4. Willson & Adams Co. v. PearceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  5. In re the Estate of WintringhamNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. GassmanNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1943
  2. Weitzberg v. DubinskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API