Opinion

Greenfield v. Central Labor Council

  • 104 Or. 236
  • 192 P. 783
  • 1920 Ore. LEXIS 1
Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 1, 1920
Status
Published
Author
Bennett
On the bench
Bean, Bennett, Benson, Brown, Burnett, Consideration, Harris, Johns, McBride, McCourt, Took
Cited by
20 cases

The opinion

BENNETT, J.,

Specially Concurring. — I concur in

the reasoning and general result reached in the opinion of Mr. Justice Johns in this case, but I think the limitation on the' number of pickets is too narrow. On principle, as shown in Mr. Justice Johns’ opinion, the right of the defendants to solicit and persuade plaintiff’s customers in a peaceable manner to withhold their patronage ought not to be limited except to prevent physical interference with the ingress and egress of customers.

In this case the pickets were ladies. We should and must assume that these young women are just as modest and ladylike as average women, -and it would be unnecessarily embarrassing to restrict them so that they would be compelled to act alone. I see no necessity or just reason for so narrow a limitation.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.