Cluster 1418792

Union No. 1067 (1940) 16 Cal.2d 311, 319-320 [ 106 P.2d 373 ].) It is well established “that ‘peaceful picketing is an activity subject to absolute constitutional protection in the absence of a valid state interest justifying limitation or restriction.’ ” (United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 504 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713 ].) To justify such limitation or restriction of a union’s right of free speech, an employer must demonstrate a …

(S025815), and will be resolved in that case; (ii) this case presents an important issue of constitutional law that potentially affects all charter cities (see United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 503-504 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713 ]), the issue is well briefed in this court by the parties and various amici curiae, and furthermore, although not controlling, "[a]ll parties on the appeal appear to wish a decision" on the municipal aff…

(See United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 503-504 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713 ]; Green v. Layton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 922, 925 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 538 P.2d 225 ]; Los Angeles County Employees Assn. v. County of Los Angeles (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 926, 934 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 807 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 258, p. 265.) The primary issue before this court is the same one presented to the trial court by Acme in its petiti…

In exercising its discretion, the trial court properly attempted to strike a balance, protecting the rights of Coastal and the nonstrikers while protecting the "presumptively protected status of peaceful picketing activities...." ( Kaplan's Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 26 Cal.3d 60, 81 [ 162 Cal. Rptr. 745 , 603 P.2d 1341 ]; United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 505 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713 ].) As we noted in Kaplan…

(See, e.g., DeRonde v. Regents of University of California (1981) 28 Cal.3d 875, 879-880 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 677 , 625 P.2d 220 ]; United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 503-504 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713 ]; Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 465 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 541 P.2d 881 ]; Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 622, fn. 6 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 517 P.2d 1168 ].) In Johnson v. Hamilton, supra, 15 Cal.3d 461 , the cou…

As was stated in United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 505 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713 ]: “In United Farm Workers Organizing Committee v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 556, wherein we cautioned against broad injunctions limiting ‘legitimate activities of industrial combatants’ (pp. 569-570) we also pointed out that ‘Needless to say, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting a court from enjoining violence, activity w…

(See United Farm Workers of *78 America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 505 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713 ]; United Farm Workers Organizing Committee v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 556, 572, fn. 30 [ 94 Cal. Rptr. 263 , 483 P.2d 1215 ]; California Retail Liquor Dealers Institute v. United Farm Workers (1976) 57 Cal. App.3d 606, 610-611 [ 129 Cal. Rptr. 407 ]; Pezold v. Amalgamated etc. Workmen (1942) 54 Cal. App.2d 120, 126-127 [ 128 P.2d 611 ]; Chrisman v. …

See also, United Farm Workers v. Superior Court of Monterey County, 16 Cal.3d 499 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 209 , 546 P.2d 713, 717 (1976). 14 .