Citation network
Baker Vs. General Motors Corp.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 02, 1986
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
-
Baker v. GeneralSearch
-
Motors Corp. - 478 U.S. 621 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Baker v. GeneralSearch
-
Motors Corp., 478 U.S. 621 (1986) Baker v. GeneralSearch
-
history of the Social Security Act, which was reviewed in New York Telephone Page 478 U. S. 632 Co. v. NewSearch
-
Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act were both enacted in the summer of 1935. See New York Telephone Co. v. NewSearch
-
statute required any State to adopt, or to maintain, an unemployment compensation program. See Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
-
Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. HodorySearch
-
U. S. 634 caused by a labor dispute. A preemption argument was advanced, however, in New York Telephone Co. v. NewSearch
-
Id. at 440 U. S. 532 . Relying on the preemption analysis in Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
authorized by Title IX of the Social Security Act. II Appellants place their primary reliance on Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
a)(ii) as a consequence. See Baker v. GeneralSearch
-
to appeal and disposed of certain issues before remanding to the Board of Review for further proceedings. See Baker v. GeneralSearch
-
not make the plaintiffs' action in accord with the contract 'involuntary.' As the Court of Appeals said in Applegate v. PalladiumSearch
-
Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
-
of discretion to establish qualifications for receiving unemployment benefits. Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. HodorySearch
-
in ways that may interfere with the smooth operation of the federal labor laws. Thus, in New York Telephone Co. v. NewSearch
-
NLRA in ways Page 478 U. S. 640 that Congress did not intend to permit are preempted. For example, in Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
ante at 478 U. S. 633 (quoting Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. HodorySearch
-
those charged with the responsibility for setting it in motion, they are entitled to considerable deference. See Udall v. TallmanSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 380 U. S. 16 (1965) (quoting Power Reactor Development Co. v. ElectricalSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Baker v. GeneralSearch
-
Co. v. NewSearch
-
See New York Telephone Co. v. NewSearch
-
See Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
-
New York Telephone Co. v. NewSearch
-
Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
See Baker v. GeneralSearch
-
Applegate v. PalladiumSearch
-
See Udall v. TallmanSearch
-
Power Reactor Development Co. v. ElectricalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial