Canepa v. "John Doe"

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 18, 1938

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1938-01-18

Relies on Goldfinger v. Feintuch

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1938-01-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1959

10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The complaint sufficiently alleges that the picketing by the defendants is part of a true secondary . boycott and an unlawful interference with the business *55 of the plaintiff (Goldfinger v. Feintuch, 276 N. Y. 281.) Whether or not the case is one “ involving or growing out of a labor dispute ” as these terms are defined by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, the complaint is sufficient.

¶2 The order should be affirmed, without costs. The first question certified is not answered and the second question is answered in the affirmative.

¶3 Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hitbbs, J., taking no part.

¶4 Order affirmed, etc.