Citation network
United Mine Workers Vs. Gibbs
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 1966
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. 715 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court United Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
U.S. 715 (1966) United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSearch
-
jurisdiction of the claim based on Tennessee law. There was no need to decide a like question in Teamsters Union v. MortonSearch
-
law of torts, of conduct marked by violence and imminent threats to the public order. United Automobile Workers v. RussellSearch
-
United Construction Workers v. LaburnumSearch
-
the state claim was properly adjudicated in the District Court absent diversity jurisdiction. The Court held in Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
Page 383 U. S. 723 United States v. MemphisSearch
-
The Court in Hurn identified what it meant by the term by citation of Baltimore S.S. Co. v. PhillipsSearch
-
claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. Levering & Garriges Co. v. MorrinSearch
-
should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims, even though bound to apply state law to them, Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
while this interrelationship does not create statutory federal question jurisdiction, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. MottleySearch
-
limited recovery to compensatory damages based on secondary pressures, Teamsters Union v. MortonSearch
-
against the contention that state law was preempted by the passage of federal labor legislation. Allen-Bradley Local v. WisconsinSearch
-
United Automobile Workers v. WisconsinSearch
-
United Automobile Workers v. RussellSearch
-
of the compelling state interest in the maintenance of domestic peace. Thus, in San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
It is true that, in Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. MeadowmoorSearch
-
upon the fears the violence engendered. We agree. Page 383 U. S. 736 We held in Brotherhood of Carpenters v. UnitedSearch
-
Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
no rigid requirement that a union affirmatively disavow such unlawful acts as may previously have occurred. Cf. ILGWU v. LaborSearch
-
remedy. Teamsters Union v. MortonSearch
-
a)(2) (1964 ed.), Tennessee Consolidated Coal Co., 131 NLRB 536, enforcement denied sub nom. Labor Board v. TennesseeSearch
-
See Dukes v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
Brumley v. ChattanoogaSearch
-
Dale v. TempleSearch
-
American Fire & Cas. Co. v. FinnSearch
-
Musher Foundation, Inc. v. AlbaSearch
-
E.g., Musher Foundation v. AlbaSearch
-
at all is presented, Gully v. FirstSearch
-
for pendent jurisdiction purposes may often appear together, see Dann v. Studebaker-PackardSearch
-
Cf. Armstrong Co. v. Nu-EnamelSearch
-
Baltimore S.S. Co. v. PhillipsSearch
-
Massachusetts Universalist Convention v. HildrethSearch
-
Moynahan v. Pari-MutuelSearch
-
Shulman & Jaegerman, supra, note 9 at 408. In his oft-cited concurrence in Strachman v. PalmerSearch
-
Wham-O-Mfg. Co. v. ParadiseSearch
-
In Teamsters Union v. MortonSearch
-
as a tort, see Original Ballet Ruse, Ltd. v. BalletSearch
-
Riley v. DunSearch
-
United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSearch
-
of Baltimore S.S. Co. v. PhillipsSearch
-
Levering & Garriges Co. v. MorrinSearch
-
Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial