-
353 U.S. 448·
U.S.·
1957-06-03
·cited 2627×
The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction under § 301 to enforce arbitration provisions in collective-bargaining agreements.
-
330 U.S. 258·
U.S.·
1947-03-06
·cited 2377×
A restraining order issued in a case involving a private labor dispute, even if the government has seized the property, is void and cannot be the basis for a contempt citation.
-
398 U.S. 235·
U.S.·
1970-06-01
·cited 1342×
-
381 U.S. 657·
U.S.·
1965-06-07
·cited 1178×
A union's participation with employers in an industry-wide agreement to force some employers out of business violates antitrust laws.
-
386 U.S. 612·
U.S.·
1967-04-17
·cited 883×
The Union's boycott of prefitted doors and the collective bargaining agreement authorizing it constitute unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
-
353 U.S. 30·
U.S.·
1957-03-25
·cited 795×
Federal courts can issue injunctions to prevent strikes over minor grievances pending before the National Railroad Adjustment Board, as the Railway Labor Act's specific provisions override the general prohibitions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in such cases.
-
398 U.S. 281·
U.S.·
1970-06-08
·cited 759×
The Supreme Court held that a federal court injunction against a state court injunction was improper under the federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2283. The Court found that neither of the exceptions relied upon by the union – to protect or effectuate prior federal jud
-
312 U.S. 219·
U.S.·
1941-02-03
·cited 663×
The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not repeal the provisions of the Sherman Act authorizing actions at law and criminal prosecutions for anti-trust violations.
-
450 U.S. 728·
U.S.·
1981-04-06
·cited 584×
The dissent argues that the Court's decision to allow routine wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act to be litigated in federal courts, rather than be subject to binding arbitration, ignores congressional policy favoring arbitration and the practical benefits of alternati
-
394 U.S. 369·
U.S.·
1969-03-25
·cited 538×
The dissent argues that states retain the power to regulate secondary boycotts in the railway industry when Congress has not expressly legislated in that area, and that such state regulation does not conflict with federal law.
-
330 U.S. 395·
U.S.·
1947-03-10
·cited 513×
The dissenting justices argue that the Court's interpretation of Section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act improperly immunizes unions and corporations from liability under the Sherman Law for the acts of their officers.
-
390 U.S. 557·
U.S.·
1968-04-08
·cited 511×
-
325 U.S. 797·
U.S.·
1945-06-18
·cited 506×
The court held that the union's actions did not constitute aiding and abetting a violation of the Sherman Act, and therefore its statutory immunity would not disappear.
-
428 U.S. 397·
U.S.·
1976-07-06
·cited 499×
A federal court cannot enjoin a sympathy strike pending arbitration if the strike is not over an arbitrable grievance, as this would violate the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
-
370 U.S. 195·
U.S.·
1962-06-18
·cited 473×
The Taft-Hartley Act's § 301 did not implicitly repeal the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibition against federal courts issuing injunctions in labor disputes, even when the dispute involves a breach of a collective bargaining agreement.
-
368 U.S. 502·
U.S.·
1962-02-19
·cited 436×
Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 does not divest state courts of jurisdiction over suits for violation of collective bargaining agreements.
-
410 U.S. 396·
U.S.·
1973-02-22
·cited 414×
The Court's opinion, which Justice Blackmun joins, holds that the Hobbs Act does not encompass the acts of violence charged in the indictment.
-
388 U.S. 307·
U.S.·
1967-06-12
·cited 409×
The Court holds that petitioners may be convicted for violating an injunction, even if the underlying ordinance is unconstitutional, because they failed to challenge the injunction through proper legal channels.
-
381 U.S. 676·
U.S.·
1965-06-07
·cited 368×
The dissenting justices argue that the multi-employer agreement with the union not to sell meat during specific hours was not immunized from antitrust laws and constituted a violation of the Sherman Act.
-
389 U.S. 64·
U.S.·
1967-11-06
·cited 362×
-
362 U.S. 330·
U.S.·
1960-04-18
·cited 351×
The Court's decision effectively requires the railroad to obtain union consent before consolidating stations, or face a strike.
-
415 U.S. 423·
U.S.·
1974-03-04
·cited 347×
The Court affirmed the judgment because no injunctive order was in effect when the respondent's allegedly contemptuous conduct occurred.
-
422 U.S. 454·
U.S.·
1975-06-25
·cited 292×
The dissent argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3692 guarantees a jury trial right in criminal contempt proceedings arising from violations of injunctions issued under the National Labor Relations Act.
-
402 U.S. 570·
U.S.·
1971-06-01
·cited 288×
The Railway Labor Act's § 2 First imposes a judicially enforceable legal obligation to exert reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not categorically prohibit strike injunctions for its violation.
-
363 U.S. 528·
U.S.·
1960-06-20
·cited 249×
A federal district court has the power to impose reasonable conditions on a strike injunction, including preserving the status quo or compensating employees, to protect employees from irreparable harm and preserve the jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
-
338 U.S. 232·
U.S.·
1949-11-07
·cited 232×
The Supreme Court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction against discriminatory practices by a union, and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not bar such relief.
-
321 U.S. 50·
U.S.·
1944-01-17
·cited 225×
A railroad's steadfast refusal to agree to arbitration under the Railway Labor Act, despite its availability, constitutes a failure to make 'every reasonable effort' to settle the dispute as required by Section 8 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, thus forfeiting its right to federal i
-
348 U.S. 468·
U.S.·
1955-03-28
·cited 192×
A state court must decline jurisdiction when the conduct at issue is arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, even if the state attempts to regulate it under a different legal theory like restraint of trade.
-
373 U.S. 33·
U.S.·
1963-04-29
·cited 189×
A union cannot strike to enforce its interpretation of a money award issued by the National Railroad Adjustment Board; it must instead utilize the judicial enforcement procedures provided by the Railway Labor Act.
-
404 U.S. 138·
U.S.·
1971-12-08
·cited 171×
The National Labor Relations Board cannot seek a federal injunction to restrain a state court injunction against picketing, as it lacks statutory authority and the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2283 for the United States does not apply to the Board.
-
457 U.S. 702·
U.S.·
1982-06-24
·cited 170×
-
353 U.S. 547·
U.S.·
1957-06-03
·cited 168×
The Court held that Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act provides federal substantive law for enforcing collective bargaining agreements, including arbitration clauses for grievances. The Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar injunctions to enforce such arbitration ob
-
362 U.S. 365·
U.S.·
1960-04-18
·cited 165×
-
481 U.S. 429·
U.S.·
1987-04-28
·cited 155×
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin secondary picketing in railway labor disputes, as such activity falls within the definition of a 'labor dispute' under the Norris-LaGuardia Act and is not prohibited by the Railway Labor Act.
-
417 U.S. 12·
U.S.·
1974-05-20
·cited 151×
State courts have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce no-strike clauses in collective-bargaining agreements, even if the strike is also an arguably unfair labor practice under federal law.
-
421 F.2d 888·
5th Cir.·
1970-01-08
·cited 136×
The court held that the statute of limitations for filing a Title VII claim is tolled when an employee invokes contractual grievance remedies, and that preliminary injunctive relief is available to individual litigants under Title VII.
-
315 U.S. 143·
U.S.·
1942-02-02
·cited 136×
The Court held that a dispute between fish sellers and buyers over the terms of commodity sales does not constitute a 'labor dispute' under the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
-
325 U.S. 821·
U.S.·
1945-06-18
·cited 135×
Union activities that directly destroy competition in interstate commerce, rather than furthering legitimate union objectives, are not protected by the Clayton and Norris-LaGuardia Acts and may violate the Sherman Act.
-
391 U.S. 99·
U.S.·
1968-05-20
·cited 132×
Union practices affecting orchestra leaders in club-date engagements are exempt from antitrust laws because orchestra leaders are considered a 'labor group' involved in a 'labor dispute' where union regulations protect members' wages and working conditions.
-
401 U.S. 302·
U.S.·
1971-02-24
·cited 131×
The Court held that Section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act requires 'clear proof' only for a union's authorization, participation in, or ratification of unlawful acts, not for proving the occurrence of the acts themselves or other elements of an antitrust claim.
-
425 F.2d 281·
1st Cir.·
1970-04-17
·cited 122×
The court held that the Union's arbitrary and perfunctory handling of grievances constituted a breach of its duty of fair representation, barring the employer's exhaustion defense, but the suit against the Union was barred by the statute of limitations. Reinstatement is a permiss
-
W.D. Pa.·
1975-06-02
·cited 120×
A union's agreement with a general contractor to subcontract only with unionized firms is not exempt from federal antitrust laws, even if it relates to construction site work, if it is outside a collective-bargaining relationship and not jobsite-specific.
-
451 U.S. 401·
U.S.·
1981-05-04
·cited 117×
Individual employees who breach a collective-bargaining agreement by striking without union approval may not be held liable for resulting damages to employers.
-
369 U.S. 689·
U.S.·
1962-05-21
·cited 103×
A contempt conviction must be set aside if the petitioner was denied an opportunity to prove that contempt proceedings were agreed upon as a means to test the court's jurisdiction.
-
323 U.S. 316·
U.S.·
1945-01-02
·cited 102×
The Court held that the suit was rightly dismissed for want of equity jurisdiction and a justiciable case or controversy because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of legal remedies and sought an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the Royalty Adjustment
-
545 F.2d 1336·
3d Cir.·
1976-11-15
·cited 93×
The court must reverse the district court's injunction order based on controlling precedent, but the concurring judge disagrees with the doctrine that all coercive civil contempt orders fail if the underlying order is invalid.
-
450 F.2d 603·
D.C. Cir.·
1971-03-31
·cited 92×
The court held that after the Railway Labor Act's procedures are exhausted and bargaining reaches an impasse, a union may lawfully conduct selective strikes against some carriers to exert economic pressure for a national agreement.
-
479 F.2d 778·
5th Cir.·
1973-05-08
·cited 91×
A temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA is appropriate when there is reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices have occurred and equitable relief is necessary to preserve the Board's jurisdiction and the status quo, even if the legal theories are novel.
-
307 F.2d 21·
2d Cir.·
1962-06-18
·cited 90×
The court held that the dispute was minor under the Railway Labor Act, requiring resolution by the Adjustment Board, and enjoined the union's strike.
-
361 U.S. 39·
U.S.·
1959-11-07
·cited 89×
The Court affirmed the injunction, holding that the statute allows courts to enjoin strikes affecting an entire industry that imperil national health or safety, without delving into the merits of the labor dispute.