Citation network
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Vs. Carpenters
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 15, 1978
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
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CarpentersSearch
-
U.S. 180 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CarpentersSearch
-
U.S. 180 (1978) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. SanSearch
-
state jurisdiction was preempted under the guidelines of San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
Court of Appeal affirmed. While acknowledging the preemption guidelines set forth in San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
Longshoremen v. AriadneSearch
-
picketing -- is either prohibited or protected by the Federal Act. III In San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
of permitting the state court to proceed. Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Labor Relations Page 436 U. S. 192 Board it is not subject to litigation in a state tribunal is Garner v. TeamstersSearch
-
cases, except by way of review or on application of the federal Board, precludes state courts from doing so. Cf. Myers v. BethehemSearch
-
Amalgamated Utility Workers v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
be invoked to enjoin collective activity which is also arguably prohibited by the federal Act. Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
Weber v. Anheuser-BuschSearch
-
U.S. at 359 U. S. 244 . See Construction Workers v. LaburnumSearch
-
Linn v. PlantSearch
-
a State from exercising jurisdiction limited to the trespassory aspects of that activity. Page 436 U. S. 199 V TheSearch
-
of the federal Act. In NLRB v. BabcockSearch
-
rights and private property rights asserted in any given context. Hudgens v. NLRBSearch
-
The issue was left open by the Court in Meat Cutters v. FairlawnSearch
-
Meats, Inc., 353 U. S. 20 , 353 U. S. 24 25. Cf. Taggart v. Weinacker'sSearch
-
activity. For cases in addition to this one in which preemption was found, see, e.g., Reece Shirley & Ron's, Inc. v. RetailSearch
-
Freeman v. RetailSearch
-
Wash.2d 426, 363 P.2d 803 (1961). For cases reaching a contrary conclusion, see, e.g., May Department Stores Co. v. TeamstersSearch
-
People v. BushSearch
-
Hood v. StaffordSearch
-
indicated that the Garmon rule should not be read to require preemption of state jurisdiction. Hanna Mining Co. v. MarineSearch
-
in federal district court even though the underlying unfair labor practices are remediable by the Board. See Teamsters v. MortonSearch
-
bargaining agreement even if the breach is an unfair labor practice within the Board's jurisdiction. See Smith v. EveningSearch
-
Bethehem Steel Co. v. NewSearch
-
LaCrosse Telephone Corp. v. WisconsinSearch
-
Plankinton Packing Co. v. WisconsinSearch
-
Electrical Workers v. FarnsworthSearch
-
U.S. at 348 U. S. 479 . Motor Coach Employees v. LockridgeSearch
-
of the Act. The Court considered protected conduct in the latter sense in Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
that the conduct involved be unregulated because left 'to be controlled by the free play of economic forces.' NLRB v. Nash-FinchSearch
-
under federal law should be immune from state judicial control. To this extent, San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
Construction Workers v. LaburnumSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CarpentersSearch
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. SanSearch
-
of San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
the Federal Act. III In San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
Garner v. TeamstersSearch
-
Cf. Myers v. BethehemSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial