Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Auto Workers Vs. Scofield

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 07, 1965

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

67 entries 67 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 205 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Auto Workers v. Scofield
    Search
  2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield
    Search
  3. blending of both interests, is entitled to recognition as a party in appellate proceedings. Amalgamated Util. Workers v. Consolidated
    Search
  4. of the difficulties of the problem, and authorized the Union to file an amicus brief. Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  5. permits us to review the orders denying intervention. See Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore
    Search
  6. Lacking a clear directive on the subject, we look to the statutory design of the Act. Cf. Scripps-Howard Radio v. Commission
    Search
  7. Recognition of intervention rights in this instance is in complete accord with the statements in Ford Motor Co. v. Labor
    Search
  8. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. v. Labor
    Search
  9. Zdanok v. Glidden
    Search
  10. the status of intervenor in the Court of Appeals proceeding may seek certiorari from the decision there, Steelworkers v. Labor
    Search
  11. International Union of Mine Workers v. Eagle-Picher
    Search
  12. before the Court and the dispute has been fully developed without inconvenience to either private party. Steelworkers v. Labor
    Search
  13. at stake. Support for this view is claimed to be found in our decision in Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated
    Search
  14. in the Steelworkers trilogy, 363 U. S. 564 , 363 U. S. 574 , 363 U. S. 593 , and Carey v. Westinghouse
    Search
  15. Nor do we think that our holding in Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated
    Search
  16. d), 49 Stat. 454, Ford Motor Co. v. Labor
    Search
  17. Uaw, Afl-Cio V. Fafnir
    Search
  18. Darlington Mfg. Co. v. Labor
    Search
  19. Board, 325 F.2d 682 (C.A.4th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Textile Workers v. Darlington
    Search
  20. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers v. Labor
    Search
  21. Labor Board v. Wooster
    Search
  22. American Newspaper Publishers Assn. v. Labor
    Search
  23. Carrier Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  24. Board, 311 F.2d 135 (C.A.2d Cir.), reversed on other grounds sub nom. Steelworkers v. Labor
    Search
  25. Retail Clerks International Assn. v. Labor
    Search
  26. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Labor
    Search
  27. Minnesota Milk Co. v. Labor
    Search
  28. Great Western Broadcasting Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  29. Selby-Battersby & Co. v. Labor
    Search
  30. Kovach v. Labor
    Search
  31. Board, 229 F.2d 138 (C.A.7th Cir.). Contra, Superior Derrick Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  32. Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Labor
    Search
  33. Haleston Drug Stores, Inc. v. Labor
    Search
  34. review proceeding. Such an incongruous result should not be sanctioned in light of our statement in Ford Motor Co. v. Labor
    Search
  35. a)(2) or Rule 24(b)(2), we think the charged party would be entitled to intervene. See Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United
    Search
  36. Textile Workers Union of America v. Allendale
    Search
  37. The cases which have permitted intervention usually have not discussed the question, e.g., Labor Board v. Johnson
    Search
  38. Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  39. Board, 210 F.2d 852 (C.A.7th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom. Kearney-Trecker Employees, UAW v. Labor
    Search
  40. West Texas Utilities Co. v. Labor
    Search
  41. Board, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 184 F.2d 233, cert. denied, 341 U.S. 939. Contra, Labor Board v. Retail
    Search
  42. Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  43. Aluminum Ore Co. v. Labor
    Search
  44. Labor Board v. Fansteel
    Search
  45. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  46. Nathanson v. Labor
    Search
  47. Smith v. Evening
    Search
  48. See Retail Clerks Local 137 v. Food
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Auto Workers v. Scofield
    Search
  50. Amalgamated Util. Workers v. Consolidated
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial