Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Meat Drivers Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 19, 1962

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

51 entries 4 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Bakery Drivers Local Vs. Wohl US Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1942
  2. United States Vs. Hutcheson US Supreme Court · Feb 03, 1941
  3. Columbia River Packers Assn., Inc. Vs. Hinton US Supreme Court · Feb 02, 1942
  4. Estate of Sanford Vs. Commissioner US Supreme Court · Nov 06, 1939
  5. Meat Drivers v. United
    Search
  6. States - 371 U.S. 94 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Meat Drivers v. United
    Search
  7. States, 371 U.S. 94 (1962) Los Angeles Meat & Provision Drivers Union v. United
    Search
  8. and its members have conspired among themselves or with others to violate the antitrust laws. Hartford-Empire Co. v. Page
    Search
  9. restraint of trade between businessmen and a labor union from the sanctions of the antitrust laws. Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  10. exemption provisions of the Clayton Act are applicable. This Court's decision in Columbia River Packers Assn. v. Hinton
    Search
  11. often have a legitimate interest in soliciting self-employed entrepreneurs as members. Cf. Milk Wagon Drivers' Union v. Lake
    Search
  12. Local 24 v. Oliver
    Search
  13. antitrust laws, but all general criminal conspiracy statutes as well. Such a claim was explicitly rejected in Giboney v. Empire
    Search
  14. United States v. Swift
    Search
  15. Co., 286 U. S. 106 , 286 U. S. 114 . Cf. Donaldson v. Read
    Search
  16. and 20 of the Clayton Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, as interpreted by United States v. Hutcheson
    Search
  17. here of the doctrines enunciated by this Court in cases such as Columbia River Packers Association, Inc., v. Hinton
    Search
  18. U. S. 143 , and Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  19. of the processors. We cannot overlook the force of these concessions. This case is unlike Labor Board v. Hearst
    Search
  20. LaGuardia Act prohibitions on specified injunctive relief. There is involved neither an extension of Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  21. the related question whether the substantive antitrust exemption read into the Norris-LaGuardia Act by United States v. Hutcheson
    Search
  22. to waive the latter. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. If we took here the approach we took in Labor Board v. Hearst
    Search
  23. own cases (which are much closer on their facts to the present controversy than is Columbia River Packers Assn., Inc. v. Hinton
    Search
  24. the transportation and service trades has led to wage and job competition and to strife of one kind or another. Senn v. Tile
    Search
  25. contractor who did much of the manual labor himself but also hired a few non-union helpers. In Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl
    Search
  26. U. S. 770 . We sustained under the First Amendment the union's picketing of the peddlers. See also Local 24 v. Oliver
    Search
  27. U. S. 283 . Drivers' Union v. Lake
    Search
  28. the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and therefore that the federal courts had no power to issue an injunction. Cf. United States v. American
    Search
  29. drive trucks for grease producers and pick up and transport grease. The record in American Trucking Assns. v. United
    Search
  30. American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City
    Search
  31. other stipulations of fact compel the contrary conclusion, which is essentially a legal question. Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner
    Search
  32. brought against the grease peddlers, insofar as they combined with processors a non-labor group. See Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  33. abiding, in no way qualifies the absolute command of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Indeed, we held in Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  34. U.S. Supreme Court Meat Drivers v. United
    Search
  35. Los Angeles Meat & Provision Drivers Union v. United
    Search
  36. Hartford-Empire Co. v. Page
    Search
  37. Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  38. Columbia River Packers Assn. v. Hinton
    Search
  39. Cf. Milk Wagon Drivers' Union v. Lake
    Search
  40. Giboney v. Empire
    Search
  41. Cf. Donaldson v. Read
    Search
  42. Columbia River Packers Association, Inc., v. Hinton
    Search
  43. and Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  44. Labor Board v. Hearst
    Search
  45. of Allen Bradley Co. v. Local
    Search
  46. Senn v. Tile
    Search
  47. In Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl
    Search
  48. Drivers' Union v. Lake
    Search
  49. Cf. United States v. American
    Search
  50. American Trucking Assns. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial