BOCA RATON CLUB, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND HILDEMART CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS.
v.
HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), AND ALBERT H. BERLIN, CLARENCE L. SMITH AND HENRY MISCHEL, AS BUSINESS AGENTS AND OFFICERS THEREOF, RESPONDENTS; SORRENTO HOTEL CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), AND ALBERT H. BERLIN, CLARENCE L. SMITH AND HENRY MISCHEL, AS BUSINESS AGENTS AND OFFICERS THEREOF, RESPONDENTS; HARRY LEVY, MARK ALLEN LEVY TRUST, ERWIN J. FRIED, GENERAL OPERATING CO., ALEX T. SPARE, MORRIS LANSBURGH CO., JAMES PAULEN, ALVIN C. RICHTER, ALBERT GREEN, CHESTER AND SALLY KRONE, HARRY A. LEVY-IRREVOCABLE TRUST, MINNIE GINSBERG, JEROME GRANGER, DOING BUSINESS AS THE SHERRY FRONTENAC HOTEL, PETITIONERS, V. HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), AND ALBERT H. BERLIN, CLARENCE L. SMITH AND HENRY MISCHEL, AS BUSINESS AGENTS AND OFFICERS THEREOF, RESPONDENTS; LEEVLANDS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), AND ALBERT H. BERLIN, CLARENCE L. SMITH AND HENRY MISCHEL, AS BUSINESS AGENTS AND OFFICERS THEREOF, RESPONDENTS; MONTE CARLO, INC., PETITIONER, V. HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), AND ALBERT H. BERLIN, CLARENCE L. SMITH AND HENRY MISCHEL, AS BUSINESS AGENTS AND OFFICERS THEREOF, RESPONDENTS; 2500 COLLINS AVENUE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), AND ALBERT H. BERLIN, CLARENCE L. SMITH AND HENRY MISCHEL, AS BUSINESS AGENTS AND OFFICERS THEREOF, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves multiple petitioners seeking temporary injunctions against a hotel employees union's picketing. The lower court denied the injunctions, finding the picketing methods were not sufficient grounds for relief, but deferred ruling on the lawfulness of the picketing's purpose. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the deferral, and remanded with directions to issue temporary restraining orders.
Yes, a court should not defer ruling on the lawfulness of picketing's purpose when a temporary injunction is sought. The court must determine if the picketing is for an unlawful purpose, even if the methods are not objectionable.
“The reason for denial was that the "plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing for relief on the basis of the manner of the picketing and the method in which it is being conducted."”
This quote explains the lower court's initial reason for denying the injunctions, focusing on the picketing methods.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMultiple petitioners sought temporary injunctions against picketing by the Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255. The lower court denied these applicat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Picketing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing cases are similar to Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 (A. F. L.), Fla., 80 So. 2d 602. These cases were combined and heard together in the lower court. Application for temporary injunction was denied after evidence in each case. The reason for denial was that the “plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing for relief on the basis of the manner of the picketing and the method in which it is being conducted.” The court further found that “defendants not having filed answers or other pleadings to the complaint, the allegation or contention made by the plaintiff that the picketing is conducted for an unlawful or illegal purpose is not considered nor passed upon, but determination of this question is reversed until final hearing.”
On authority of Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 (A. F. of L.), certiorari is granted as to that part of the Chancellor’s order in each of said causes which deferred ruling upon the question whether or not the picketing was being carried on for an unlawful purpose, and each of said causes is remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to enter a temporary restraining order therein.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, SE-BRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. City OF Miami Beach, 16 Fla. Supp. 145 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…minary injunctive relief prayed for in plaintiff’s verified complaint in accordance with the principles of law enunciated in Sax Enterprises v. Hotel Employees Union, Fla. 1955, 80 So. 2d 602; and Boca Raton Club v. Hotel Employees Union, Fla. 1955, 80 So. 2d 680, by granting a preliminary injunctive order enjoining the defendant municipalities from further enforcing their municipal traffic regulations and ordering them to recognize and conform to the county traffic ordinance. [*150] The City of Miami Beach…
-
Thomas Jefferson, Inc. v. Hotel Emps. Union, 84 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1956)…ses resulting from the picketing of Miami Beach hotels. See Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union Local No. 255 (A. F. of L.), Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 602; Boca Raton Club, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 (A. F. of L.), Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 680. Typical of the other cases, petitioner filed its complaint against the respondents seeking an injunction against picketing activities of the respondents, alleging that the picketing was done for an unlawful purpose, to-wit, to compel non [*584] uni…
Authorities Cited
- SAX Enters., Inc. v. Hotel Emps. Union Local NO. 255 (A. F. of L.) & Albert H. Berlin, 80 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1955)