United Association of Journeymen

24 Cited authorities

Thornhill v. Alabama
310 U.S. 88 (1940) Cited 1,704 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a law is overbroad if it does not aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of control, but sweeps within its ambit other activities that constitute an exercise of First Amendment rights
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,499 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Wickard v. Filburn
317 U.S. 111 (1942) Cited 924 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce"
Gompers v. Bucks Stove Range Co.
221 U.S. 418 (1911) Cited 1,559 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding criminal contempt does not “undo or remedy what has been done, nor afford any compensation for the pecuniary injury caused by the disobedience”
Mandeville Farms v. Sugar Co.
334 U.S. 219 (1948) Cited 391 times
Holding that sugar beet growers had stated a valid monopsony claim under the Sherman Act even though they did not allege end-user impact
Allen Bradley Co. v. Union
325 U.S. 797 (1945) Cited 304 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendants were not protected by the statutory labor exemption because the union had combined with contractors and manufacturers in order to boycott the plaintiffs' business
A.F. of L. v. Swing
312 U.S. 321 (1941) Cited 299 times
In AFL v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 61 S.Ct. 568, 85 L.Ed. 855 (1941), the Illinois Supreme Court had enjoined picketing by a labor union on the ground that there was no dispute between the employer and his immediate employees.
Levering G. Co. v. Morrin
289 U.S. 103 (1933) Cited 343 times
Holding that court lacked jurisdiction when federal question presented had been foreclosed by two previous decisions and therefore "no longer the subject of controversy"
Duplex Co. v. Deering
254 U.S. 443 (1921) Cited 486 times
Holding a strike and picketing with the purpose of unionizing a plant not a labor dispute because the objectives were not legitimate and there was no employer-employee relationship between the disputants
Labor Board v. Fainblatt
306 U.S. 601 (1939) Cited 281 times
Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power

United Association of Journeymen

24 Cited authorities

Holding that a law is overbroad if it does not aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of control, but sweeps within its ambit other activities that constitute an exercise of First Amendment rights

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that "even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce"

Holding criminal contempt does not “undo or remedy what has been done, nor afford any compensation for the pecuniary injury caused by the disobedience”

Holding that sugar beet growers had stated a valid monopsony claim under the Sherman Act even though they did not allege end-user impact

Holding that the defendants were not protected by the statutory labor exemption because the union had combined with contractors and manufacturers in order to boycott the plaintiffs' business

In AFL v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 61 S.Ct. 568, 85 L.Ed. 855 (1941), the Illinois Supreme Court had enjoined picketing by a labor union on the ground that there was no dispute between the employer and his immediate employees.

Holding that court lacked jurisdiction when federal question presented had been foreclosed by two previous decisions and therefore "no longer the subject of controversy"

Holding a strike and picketing with the purpose of unionizing a plant not a labor dispute because the objectives were not legitimate and there was no employer-employee relationship between the disputants

Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power