Court Opinion

ID: 9678983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:37:47.662451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.337830
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting). We are in complete agreement with Justice O’Hara’s finding “that the Hutchinson act is without constitutional infirmity, that appellants are public employees and as such *330subject to its no-strike provisions, and that the courts have jurisdiction to restrain prohibited strikes by public employees.”
We disagree, however, with his finding “that there was a lack of proof which would support the issuance of a temporary injunction.” We find there was sufficient proof and vote to affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Dethmers, C. J., concurred with Kelly, J.