Plant v. Woods

57 N.E. 1011 (1900)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Plant v. Woods

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
57 N.E. 1011 (1900)

  • Written by Patricia Peters, JD

Facts

Union 257, Painters and Decorators of America (the Baltimore union) (defendants) was affiliated with a national organization headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1897, several members of the Baltimore union withdrew to form a new painters’ union (the Lafayette union) (plaintiffs), which was affiliated with a different organization headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana. In September 1898, the Baltimore union declared painters who were not in the Baltimore union to be “non-union men.” Members of the Baltimore union attempted to persuade nonmember painters—including members of the Lafayette union—to join the Baltimore union, occasionally using threats and intimidation if peaceful methods failed. On October 7, 1898, the Baltimore union voted to boycott, strike at, or threaten to strike at any workplace that employed members of the Lafayette union. In carrying out this plan, the Baltimore union sought to compel members of the Lafayette union to either join the Baltimore union or risk losing their jobs. The Springfield, Massachusetts, branch of the Lafayette union sought and was granted an injunction against the Baltimore union. The Baltimore union appealed, arguing that there was nothing illegal about workers agreeing to stop working at a coordinated time and thus that boycotts and strikes were not inherently illegal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hammond, J.)

Dissent (Holmes, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership