Simons Brick Co. v. United Brick, Tile & Clay Workers

California Supreme Court

Simons Brick Co. v. United Brick, Tile & Clay Workers

194 P.2d 696, 32 Cal. 2d 156, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 209, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2371

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 29, 1948

DocketL. A. No. 20046

StatusPublished

This text of 194 P.2d 696 (Simons Brick Co. v. United Brick, Tile & Clay Workers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simons Brick Co. v. United Brick, Tile & Clay Workers, 194 P.2d 696, 32 Cal. 2d 156, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 209, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2371 (Cal. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

CARTER, J.

The trial court ordered the issuance of a preliminary injunction against certain labor activities of defendants in this case in which plaintiff is the employer and defendants are labor unions and members and representatives thereof. An appeal is taken from that order by some of the defendants.

The order is based upon a violation of the Hot Cargo law. (Lab. Code, §§ 1131-1136.) As stated by the trial court in its opinion: “In each of these cases the complaint charges some form of violation of the Hot Cargo and Secondary Boycott Act (Stats. 1941, ch. 623, p. 2079), now constituting sections 1131-1136 of the Labor Code. Appearing defendants, by demurrer and resistance of motion for preliminary injunction, challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Counsel stoutly assert the activities described in the Act and denominated ‘hot cargo’ and ‘secondary boycott’ to be [157]*157constitutionally protected labor activities, but their arguments revolve mainly around the impact of the statute upon picketing and the claim that it is an exercise of the right of free speech which the legislature unconstitutionally attempts to restrain. The matter will be examined in both its aspects.” Likewise the appellants and respondent devote their attention to the validity of that act. No other basis for supporting the preliminary injunction is suggested. The case is therefore controlled by In re Blaney, 30 Cal.2d 643 [184 P.2d 892], in which this court held the Hot Cargo Act to be invalid.

The order is reversed.

Gibson, C. J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

CARTER, J.

The trial court ordered the issuance of a preliminary injunction against certain labor activities of defendants in this case in which plaintiff is the employer and defendants are labor unions and members and representatives thereof. An appeal is taken from that order by some of the defendants.

The order is based upon a violation of the Hot Cargo law. (Lab. Code, §§ 1131-1136.) As stated by the trial court in its opinion: “In each of these cases the complaint charges some form of violation of the Hot Cargo and Secondary Boycott Act (Stats. 1941, ch. 623, p. 2079), now constituting sections 1131-1136 of the Labor Code. Appearing defendants, by demurrer and resistance of motion for preliminary injunction, challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Counsel stoutly assert the activities described in the Act and denominated ‘hot cargo’ and ‘secondary boycott’ to be [157]*157constitutionally protected labor activities, but their arguments revolve mainly around the impact of the statute upon picketing and the claim that it is an exercise of the right of free speech which the legislature unconstitutionally attempts to restrain. The matter will be examined in both its aspects.” Likewise the appellants and respondent devote their attention to the validity of that act. No other basis for supporting the preliminary injunction is suggested. The case is therefore controlled by In re Blaney, 30 Cal.2d 643 [184 P.2d 892], in which this court held the Hot Cargo Act to be invalid.

The order is reversed.

Gibson, C. J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 P.2d 696, 32 Cal. 2d 156, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 209, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simons-brick-co-v-united-brick-tile-clay-workers-cal-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack