Florsheim Shoe Store Co. v. Retail Shoe Salesmen's Union

269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 788

This text of 269 A.D. 757 (Florsheim Shoe Store Co. v. Retail Shoe Salesmen's Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florsheim Shoe Store Co. v. Retail Shoe Salesmen's Union, 269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Opinion

Appeal by defendants from a judgment granting plaintiffs a permanent injunction. Judgment modified on the law (1) by striking from the first ordering paragraph subdivisions (c), (d), (e) and (g); (2) by inserting in place of subdivision (d) the following: “falsely stating that plaintiffs’ employees are on strike and making false, fraudulent, or misleading statements as to whether all of plaintiffs’ employees are on strike”; (3) by amending subdivision (f) so as to read: “in any manner coercing plaintiffs’ customers”; (4) by striking from subdivision (i) the following: “or directly or indirectly, verbally or in writing, boycotting or requesting others to boycott plaintiffs or their merchandise”. As so modified the judgment is affirmed, with costs to appellants. The restraining provisions struck out are in contravention of the Federal Constitution. (A. F. of L. v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321; Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769; Cafeteria Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 293; Yoerg Brewing Co. v. Brennan, 59 F. Supp. 625.) Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made. Close, P. J., Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Aldrich, JJ., concur in the modification to the extent of striking out subdivision “(e)” of the first ordering paragraph of the judgment, which was not contained in the temporary injunction, but in all other respects dissent and vote to affirm on the authority of Florsheim Shoe Store Co. v. Shoe Salesmen’s Union (288 N. Y. 188). Settle order on five days’ notice. [See amended decision post, p. 850.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Federation of Labor v. Swing
312 U.S. 321 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302 v. Angelos
320 U.S. 293 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Yoerg Brewing Co. v. Brennan
59 F. Supp. 625 (D. Minnesota, 1945)
Florsheim Shoe Store Co. v. Retail Shoe Salesmen's Union
42 N.E.2d 480 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florsheim-shoe-store-co-v-retail-shoe-salesmens-union-nyappdiv-1945.