Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARTIN L. WAXMAN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. LEONA CORRELL

Master and Servant — Non-employee Participating in Picketing — Conviction under Code Sec. 1950, section 40-64 Upheld.

Appellants participated in the picketing of a company whose employees were on strike though they were not themselves employees. For this action they were convicted and fined under the provisions of Code Sec. 1950, section 40-64(3), and appealed on the ground this subsection was unconstitutional. Adhering to prior decision, the court held the section constitutional and affirmed the convictions.

Per Curiam.

The appellants were convicted and fined $50 each for violating the third paragraph of Sec. 40-64 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, which is in the following words:

"When a strike or lockout is in progress, no person who is not, or immediately prior to the time of the commencement of any strike or lockout was not, a bona fide employee of the business or industry being picketed shall participate in any picketing or any picketing activity with respect to such strike or lockout."

The employees of Kenrose Manufacturing Company were on strike and were picketing the company's plant. The appellants were not employees of the company but they participated in the picketing. They contend that paragraph three of Sec. 40-64 is unconstitutional. They concede that its constitutionality was expressly sustained in Dougherty v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 515, 100 S.E.2d 754 (1957). They say in their brief: "The facts in the Dougherty case are incapable of valid distinction from the cases of Waxman, Giordano, Correll and Spence," the cases now before the court; and "If this court shall find in their favor, it must overrule its prior decision in Dougherty v. Commonwealth. There is no escape from this conclusion."

The Dougherty case was carefully considered and the conclusion reached was in our opinion correct. For the reasons therein stated we again hold that paragraph three of Sec. 40-64 is constitutional and the judgments of conviction appealed from are accordingly

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WAXMAN v. COMMONWEALTH
(Jan 15, 1962)