Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302 v. Angelos Same v. Tsakires, Nos. 36

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFRANKFURTER
Citation320 U.S. 293,64 S.Ct. 126,88 L.Ed. 58
PartiesCAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 302, et al. v. ANGELOS et al. SAME v. TSAKIRES et al
Decision Date22 November 1943
Docket Number37,Nos. 36

320 U.S. 293
64 S.Ct. 126
88 L.Ed. 58
CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 302, et al.

v.

ANGELOS et al. SAME v. TSAKIRES et al.

Nos. 36, 37.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 1943.
Decided Nov. 22, 1943.

Page 294

Mr. Louis B. Boudin, of New York City, for petitioners.

Mr. Abraham Michael Katz, of New York City, for respondents.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We brought these two cases here to determine whether injunctions sanctioned by the New York Court of Appeals exceeded the bounds within which the Fourteenth Amendment confines state power. 319 U.S. 778, 63 S.Ct. 1432, 87 L.Ed. 1724. They were argued together and, being substantially alike, can be disposed of in a single opinion.

We start with the Court of Appeals' view of the facts. In No. 36, petitioners, a labor union and its president, picketed a cafeteria in an attempt to organize it. The cafeteria was owned by the respondents, who themselves conducted the business without the aid of any employees. Picketing was carried on by a parade of one person at a time in front of the premises. The successive pickets were 'at all times orderly and peaceful'. They carried signs which tended to give the impression that the respondents were 'unfair' to organized labor and that the pickets had been previously employed in the cafeteria. These representations were treated by the court below as knowingly false in that there had been no employees in the cafeteria and the respondents were 'not unfair to organized labor'. It also found that pickets told prospective customers that the cafeteria served bad food, and that by 'patronizing' it 'they were aiding the cause of Fascism'.

The circumstances in No. 37 differ from those in No. 36 only in that pickets were found to have told prospective customers that a strike was in progress and to have 'insulted customers * * * who were about to enter' the cafeteria. Upon a finding that respondents required equitable relief to avoid irreparable damages and that there was no 'labor dispute' under the New York analogue

Page 295

of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. (§ 876-a of the New York Civil Practice Act), the trial court enjoined petitioners in broad terms from picketing at or near respondents' places of business. The decrees were affirmed by the Appellate Division (264 App.Div. 708, 34 N.Y.S.2d 408), and were finally sustained by the Court of Appeals, its Chief Judge and two Judges dissenting. 289 N.Y. 498, 507, 46 N.E.2d 903.

In Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U.S. 468, 57 S.Ct. 857, 81 L.Ed. 1229, this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
166 practice notes
  • Pittsburg Unified School Dist. v. California School Employees Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1985
    ...S.Ct. at p. 744, accord, Thomas v. Collins (1944) 323 U.S. 516, 532, 65 S.Ct. 315, 323, 89 L.Ed. 430; Cafeteria Union v. Angelos, supra, 320 U.S. 293, 64 S.Ct. 126, 88 L.Ed. 58; Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, supra, 315 U.S. 769, 62 S.Ct. 816, 86 L.Ed. 1178; A.F. of L. v. Swing, supra, 312 U......
  • Fred Wolferman, Inc., v. Root, No. 40366.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1947
    ...310 U.S. 106, 84 L. Ed. 1104; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 85 L. Ed. 855; Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293, 88 L. Ed. 59. (5) The exercise of free speech is not an absolute right, but is subject to many reasonable state restrictions. Chaplinsky v. N......
  • Ex Parte Hunn and LeVan, No. 40660.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 12, 1948
    ...Joiners Union of America v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722, 62 S. Ct. 807, 86 L. Ed. 1143; Cafeteria Employees' Union, Local 302, v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293, 64 S. Ct. 126, 88 L. Ed. 58; Miller's, Inc., v. Journeymen Tailors Union, Local No. 195, 128 N.J. Eq. 162, 15 A. (2d) 822, rev'd 312 U.S. ......
  • GUILFORD TRANSP. INDUSTRIES v. Wilner, No. 99-CV-349.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • October 12, 2000
    ...all of them are. 6. The judge cited Justice Frankfurter's observation for the Court in Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302 v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293, 295, 64 S.Ct. 126, 88 L.Ed. 58 (1943), that "to use loose language or undefined slogans that are part of the conventional give-and-take in ou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
163 cases
  • Pittsburg Unified School Dist. v. California School Employees Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1985
    ...S.Ct. at p. 744, accord, Thomas v. Collins (1944) 323 U.S. 516, 532, 65 S.Ct. 315, 323, 89 L.Ed. 430; Cafeteria Union v. Angelos, supra, 320 U.S. 293, 64 S.Ct. 126, 88 L.Ed. 58; Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, supra, 315 U.S. 769, 62 S.Ct. 816, 86 L.Ed. 1178; A.F. of L. v. Swing, supra, 312 U......
  • Fred Wolferman, Inc., v. Root, No. 40366.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1947
    ...310 U.S. 106, 84 L. Ed. 1104; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 85 L. Ed. 855; Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293, 88 L. Ed. 59. (5) The exercise of free speech is not an absolute right, but is subject to many reasonable state restrictions. Chaplinsky v. N......
  • Ex Parte Hunn and LeVan, No. 40660.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 12, 1948
    ...Joiners Union of America v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722, 62 S. Ct. 807, 86 L. Ed. 1143; Cafeteria Employees' Union, Local 302, v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293, 64 S. Ct. 126, 88 L. Ed. 58; Miller's, Inc., v. Journeymen Tailors Union, Local No. 195, 128 N.J. Eq. 162, 15 A. (2d) 822, rev'd 312 U.S. ......
  • GUILFORD TRANSP. INDUSTRIES v. Wilner, No. 99-CV-349.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • October 12, 2000
    ...all of them are. 6. The judge cited Justice Frankfurter's observation for the Court in Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302 v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293, 295, 64 S.Ct. 126, 88 L.Ed. 58 (1943), that "to use loose language or undefined slogans that are part of the conventional give-and-take in ou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Freedom of Expression
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 275-1, May 1951
    • May 1, 1951
    ...or71 Carlson v. California, 310 U. S. 106, 112(1940).72 A. F. of L. v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321(1941) ; Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos,320 U. S. 293 (1943).73 Bakery & Pastry Drivers and HelpersLocal v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769 (1942).74 Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Meadow-moor Dairies, 312 U. ......
  • Picketing: Its Use and Abuse
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 248-1, November 1946
    • November 1, 1946
    ...312 U. S. 287 (1941). When once an injunction or a cease 39 Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, and desist order is issued, the problem 320 U. S. 293 still remains of United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. obtaining performance 219 (1941). by the workers concerned, much as it ann.sagepub.c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT