Vegelahn v. Guntner (b) - homework

Vegelahn v. Guntner (b) - homework - defendants were...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Vegelahn v. Guntner (b) - homework 1.State briefly how Justice Allen distinguished Commonwealth v. Hunt from Vegelahn v. Guntner. Be sure to include and plainly label each element of a distinction. If an element is implied, say so, and state exactly what is implied. Elements of distinction Difference of fact: In Commonwealth v. Hunt workers combined by striking, while workers in Vegelahn v. Guntner combined by patrolling. Importance of difference of fact : The acts of workers in Commonwealth v. Hunt were within allowable competition as they did not injure anyone directly. The acts of the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: defendants were outside the allowable competition as they intimidated and threatened other workers. Conclusion: Defendants’ acts therefore were unlawful. Implied : Injunction against both physical harm and patrolling should be imposed. 2. Holmes’ rebuttal Justice Holmes stated that if the broader injunction be imposed, that would mean restriction on social interactions with other people and persuasion of other workers, even though neither would be of a violent nature. Holmes emphasized that the majority wrongly assumed that patrol is intrinsically harmful....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/04/2008 for the course ILRCB 2010 taught by Professor Lieberwitzr during the Spring '07 term at Cornell.

Page1 / 2

Vegelahn v. Guntner (b) - homework - defendants were...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online