Honegger v. O'Connell
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFrank S. Mc-Cttllottgh, J.
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action or in the alternative to add plaintiffs’ employer as an indispensable party defendant.
Th plaintiffs are members of defendant Union, Local 323, and employees of the employer Liebman Breweries. The union and the employer are parties to a collective bargaining agreement which contains provisions, among other things, for a union shop, seniority and adjustment of all complaints and disputes by the parties, by an adjustment…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Martin v. CurranNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Dusing v. NuzzoNew York Supreme Court · 1941
- Havens v. DodgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Havens v. KingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kominski v. Western Express Co.New York Supreme Court · 1962
- Rodgers v. O'ConnellNew York Supreme Court · 1962
- Corder v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of AmericaNew York Supreme Court · 1969