West India Fruit and Steamship Co., Inc.

64 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,212 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Romero v. International Term. Co.
358 U.S. 354 (1959) Cited 963 times
Holding that the district court had pendant jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought "by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty" because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,497 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Lauritzen v. Larsen
345 U.S. 571 (1953) Cited 746 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that because " cause of action under [federal] law was asserted here, ... the [federal] court had power to determine whether it was or was not well founded in law and in fact"
Armour Co. v. Wantock
323 U.S. 126 (1944) Cited 624 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that work is compensable if it is "predominantly for the employer's benefit" and noting that "an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing"
Labor Board v. Insurance Agents
361 U.S. 477 (1960) Cited 324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"
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
Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.
344 U.S. 280 (1952) Cited 326 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to apply the Lanham Act extraterritorially
Farrell v. United States
336 U.S. 511 (1949) Cited 347 times
Holding that a seaman's length of voyage is the duration of employment for which sick wages are due unless some longer term is enforceable
Hughes v. Superior Court
339 U.S. 460 (1950) Cited 285 times
In Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar use of the injunction to prohibit picketing of a place of business solely to secure compliance with a demand that its employees be hired in percentage to the racial origin of its customers.

West India Fruit and Steamship Co., Inc.

64 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that the district court had pendant jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought "by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty" because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

Holding that because " cause of action under [federal] law was asserted here, ... the [federal] court had power to determine whether it was or was not well founded in law and in fact"

Holding that work is compensable if it is "predominantly for the employer's benefit" and noting that "an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing"

Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

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 federal courts have jurisdiction to apply the Lanham Act extraterritorially

Holding that a seaman's length of voyage is the duration of employment for which sick wages are due unless some longer term is enforceable

In Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar use of the injunction to prohibit picketing of a place of business solely to secure compliance with a demand that its employees be hired in percentage to the racial origin of its customers.