Court Opinion

ID: 7809496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:11:06.728309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:25.752882
License: Public Domain

HAET, J., (dissenting). There is no difference in judicial opinions in respect to the illegality in the use of any act which is calculated to coerce. The difference of judicial opinions arises in respect to what acts' should be regarded as coercive. The decision of this question must depend, to a large extent, upon the circumstances surrounding each particular case. I do not think that the law is, that picketing in itself, without some other act tending to show coercion, is subject to injunctive relief. There must be taken into account the number of picketers, the extent of their occupation of the sidewalk, or street adjacent to the building or place picketed, and as well what they say and do and how they act. If the purpose of picketing is to interfere with those going into or coming out of the building, or place picketed, an injunction may be granted. On the other hand, if the design of the picketing is merely to give notice to the public that the proprietor of the place picketed is unfair to union labor, or to see who can be made the subject of persuasive argument, such picketing is legal and ought not to be enjoined. Judge HUMPHREYS concurs with me in this dissent.