Citation network
Machinists Vs. Central Airlines
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 15, 1963
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
-
Machinists v. CentralSearch
-
Airlines - 372 U.S. 682 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Machinists v. CentralSearch
-
Airlines, 372 U.S. 682 (1963) Machinists v. CentralSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the authority of its previous decision in Metcalf v. NationalSearch
-
See Romero v. InternationalSearch
-
frequent and which resulted in a myriad of minor disputes going unresolved. As a result, see Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. BurleySearch
-
Labor Act binding, and their breach redressable in the federal courts, such as the duty to bargain, Virginian R. Co. v. SystemSearch
-
the duty of a certified bargaining representative to represent all members of the craft without discrimination, Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
and, as the Court said in Tunstall v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
of Locomotive Enginemen, 323 U. S. 210 , 323 U. S. 213 quoting from Deitrick v. GreaneySearch
-
Teamsters Union v. LucasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Railway Dept. v. HansonSearch
-
by federal law, in the federal courts. The situation presented here is analogous to that, in American Surety Co. v. SchultzSearch
-
abandoned the approach of the completely unenforceable award which was used in the 1920 Act. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. BurleySearch
-
Bower v. EasternSearch
-
Washington Term Co. v. BoswellSearch
-
See Smith v. KansasSearch
-
Gully v. FirstSearch
-
Skelly Oil Co. v. PhillipsSearch
-
Romero v. InternationalSearch
-
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. NorthwesternSearch
-
American Well Works Co. v. LayneSearch
-
This is permissible. American Federation of Labor v. WatsonSearch
-
Virginian R. Co. v. SystemSearch
-
Texas & N.O. R. Co. v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
The Court has many times reviewed the history of the railway labor laws. For example, see Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. BurleySearch
-
Slocum v. DelawareSearch
-
Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. ChicagoSearch
-
Union Pac. R. Co. v. PriceSearch
-
International Ass'n of Machinists v. StreetSearch
-
Pennsylvania Federation v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
R. Co., 267 U. S. 203 . See Pennsylvania R. Co. v. LaborSearch
-
See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. ChicagoSearch
-
and 1337, was of no moment in such cases. See Tunstall v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
S. 184 , 358 U. S. 189 -190. These cases, and the one at bar, are unlike such cases as Switchmen's Union v. NationalSearch
-
Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297 , and General Committee v. M.KSearch
-
Switchmen's Union v. NationalSearch
-
General Committee v. M.KSearch
-
General Committee v. SouthernSearch
-
Brotherhood of Clerks v. UnitedSearch
-
Virginian R. Co. v. SystemSearch
-
had held that there was federal jurisdiction for suits by an aggrieved party seeking to collect from the surety. Bock v. PerkinsSearch
-
Sonnentheil v. ChristianSearch
-
Feibelman v. PackardSearch
-
Howard v. UnitedSearch
-
rights and obligations arising on commercial paper issued by the United States. See, e.g., National Metropolitan Bank v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial