EDGAR M. SANDERS, AS GENERAL SECRETARY TREASURER OF JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS AND PROPRIETORS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL DE LUCIA AND ADOLPH ROSENBAUM, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1; ANTHONY FRANCO AND JOSEPH VISCONTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRSTYLISTS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 2; LOUIS PALUDE AND GEORGE PELLETIERE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRSTYLISTS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 3; AND JOHN RESTIVO AND BEN CARBONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRSTYLISTS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 4, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
EDGAR M. SANDERS, AS GENERAL SECRETARY TREASURER OF JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS AND PROPRIETORS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
DANIEL DE LUCIA AND ADOLPH ROSENBAUM, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1; ANTHONY FRANCO AND JOSEPH VISCONTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRSTYLISTS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 2; LOUIS PALUDE AND GEORGE PELLETIERE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRSTYLISTS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 3; AND JOHN RESTIVO AND BEN CARBONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY OF BARBERS, HAIRSTYLISTS AND BEAUTY CULTURISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 4, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
379 F.2d 550
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1967)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The order of the district court denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction is affirmed. It is clear that the issuance of the requested injunction would result in greater harm to the defendants than the harm which plaintiff would suffer by reason of failure to issue the injunction. See Schenker v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 304 F. 2d 880 (2d Cir. 1962); Nalco Chemical Co. v. Hall, 347 F. 2d 90 (5th Cir. 1965).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kuehnert v. Texstar Corp., 412 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Local Union NO. 589, Allied Indus. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO, 693 F.2d 666 (7th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Nalco Chem. Co. v. Merwin G. Hall, 347 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Schenker v. E. I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co., 304 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1962)