Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
No. 58-204.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
June 5, 1958.
Kaplan & Ser, Miami, and Kastenbaum, Mamber & Gopman, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Williams & Salomon, Miami, for appel-lee.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
(concurring specially)-
Inasmuch as this is an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction and a clear abuse of discretion has not been shown, I have concurred in the decision. However it should be noted that this decision is not a holding that as a permanent injunction it would be legally sufficient.
The terms of the injunction are so broad that they might be interpreted as follows: (1) an order to “members” of the union to work, or (2) a denial of the right to strike for any purpose. Under either of these interpretations such injunctions could not be grounded upon the alleged illegal boycott.
103 So. 2d 884
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!