Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. Vs. Reis

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 04, 1981

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

65 entries 3 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Lawlor Vs. Loewe US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1915
  2. Loewe Vs. Lawlor US Supreme Court · Feb 03, 1908
  3. Buffalo Forge Co. Vs. Steelworkers US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  4. U.S. 401 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis
    Search
  5. U.S. 401 (1981) Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis
    Search
  6. joined, post, p. 451 U. S. 424 . JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. In Atkinson v. Sinclair
    Search
  7. App. to Pet. for Cert. 15a-16a, and accordingly denied preliminary injunctive relief, citing Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail
    Search
  8. injunction and to dismiss the complaint for damages. Relying on this Court's intervening decision in Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers
    Search
  9. F.2d at 1116. We agree. II Since Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  10. Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  11. Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel
    Search
  12. a), substantial deference should be paid to revealed congressional intention. See Atkinson v. Sinclair
    Search
  13. b), 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 457 , as informed by its legislative history. See Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel
    Search
  14. prohibits a money judgment entered against a union from being enforced against individual union members. See Atkinson v. Sinclair
    Search
  15. that employees should be held liable where their union is not liable for the strike. See Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Oil
    Search
  16. even though it might leave the employer unable Page 451 U. S. 408 to recover for his losses. See Atkinson v. Sinclair
    Search
  17. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Cortney
    Search
  18. b), Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  19. not individuals, and, as to unions, only when they participated in or authorized the strike. See Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine
    Search
  20. Atkinson Page 451 U. S. 417 v. Sinclair
    Search
  21. Refining Co., 370 U.S. at 370 U. S. 249 . See Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel
    Search
  22. In Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail
    Search
  23. In Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers
    Search
  24. Atkinson v. Sinclair
    Search
  25. Refining Co., 370 U.S. at 370 U. S. 248 . See Savings Bank of Danbury v. Loewe
    Search
  26. Petitioners' reliance on the statement in Hines v. Anchor
    Search
  27. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail
    Search
  28. Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine
    Search
  29. b), Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine
    Search
  30. NLRB v. Rockaway
    Search
  31. Lakeshore Motor Freight Co. v. International
    Search
  32. to return were rehired as new employees). Third, the union itself may discipline its members. See Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine
    Search
  33. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Oil
    Search
  34. where the underlying dispute giving rise to the breach is subject to binding arbitration. See Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers
    Search
  35. Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine
    Search
  36. s promise to arbitrate disputes arising in contract Page 451 U. S. 418 administration. Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  37. for the other, Steelworkers v. American
    Search
  38. Steelworkers v. Warrior
    Search
  39. based on consensual (albeit vigorously negotiated) labor contracts, see Steelworkers v. American
    Search
  40. at 398 U. S. 253 , because injunctions cannot be obtained in strikes of other kinds. E.g., Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers
    Search
  41. cases. Because a strike in breach of contract is unprotected conduct under the National Labor Relations Act, see NLRB v. Sands
    Search
  42. to work. Such discharges actually may aggravate worker discontent, and thereby prolong the strike. Cedar Coal Co. v. United
    Search
  43. is unlikely to be effective, and may be counterproductive. Moreover, under this Court's decision in Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine
    Search
  44. United States v. UMW
    Search
  45. Compare Old Ben Coal Corp. v. Local
    Search
  46. UMW, 457 F.2d 162 (CA7 1972), with Old Ben Coal Corp. v. Local
    Search
  47. not addressed the question, but some Courts of Appeals have not warmly received the Board's reasoning. See Gould, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis
    Search
  49. of the Court. In Atkinson v. Sinclair
    Search
  50. II Since Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial