Citation network
System Federation Vs. Wright
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 16, 1961
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 642 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court System Federation v. WrightSearch
-
U.S. 642 (1961) System Federation v. WrightSearch
-
decree, since a change in the law had expressly made lawful what had theretofore been forbidden. Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
bargaining agent to represent fairly and without discrimination all members of the class represented. See Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
The 1951 amendment to the Act did no more than make negotiations for a union shop permissive, Railway Employees' Dept. v. HansonSearch
-
modify this decree is not drawn in question. That proposition indeed could not well be disputed. See Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
United States v. SwiftSearch
-
Page 364 U. S. 647 Chrysler Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need. Ladner v. SiegelSearch
-
What seems plain to us in reason, as to a litigated decree, is amply supported by precedent. In Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
sought in the complaint filed by the 28 plaintiffs and the relief that had been granted after litigation in Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192 , and in Graham v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
Eleventh. See Railway Employees' Department v. HansonSearch
-
In McGrath v. PotashSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
where a mere change in decisional law has been held to justify modification of an outstanding injunction. E.g., Ladner v. SiegelSearch
-
Santa Rita Oil & Gas Co. v. StateSearch
-
Coca-Cola Co. v. StandardSearch
-
Western Union Tel. Co. v. InternationalSearch
-
In Coca-Cola Co. v. StandardSearch
-
Eleventh. Since the date of that law, which we upheld in Railway Employes' Dept. v. HansonSearch
-
by law in this industry, and a union that discriminated against nonunion members was accountable to them. See Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
in the District Court to modify the consent decree, whether or not the power to modify was reserved. United States v. SwiftSearch
-
gave up something of value to get it, we do an injustice. I think the applicable principle is stated in United States v. SwiftSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court System Federation v. WrightSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
See Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
See Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
Chrysler Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Ladner v. SiegelSearch
-
In Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Graham v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
E.g., Ladner v. SiegelSearch
-
Western Union Tel. Co. v. InternationalSearch
-
Railway Employes' Dept. v. HansonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial