Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hill Vs. Florida

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 11, 1945

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

73 entries 9 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Hines Vs. Davidowitz US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1941
    Relied / Followed
  2. Cloverleaf Butter Co. Vs. Patterson US Supreme Court · Feb 02, 1942
    Relied / Followed
  3. Union Brokerage Co. Vs. Jensen US Supreme Court · May 08, 1944
    Distinguished
  4. Sinnot Vs. Davenport US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1859
  5. Reid Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Dec 01, 1902
  6. Savage Vs. Jones US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1912
  7. Mintz Vs. Baldwin US Supreme Court · May 08, 1933
  8. Townsend Vs. Yeomans US Supreme Court · May 24, 1937
  9. Kelly Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Nov 08, 1937
  10. U.S. 538 (1945) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. Florida
    Search
  11. U.S. 538 (1945) Hill v. Florida
    Search
  12. regulations of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449. That Federal Act, we decided in Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin
    Search
  13. Napier v. Atlantic
    Search
  14. Cf. Labor Board v. Hearst
    Search
  15. about a situation inconsistent with the federally protected process of collective bargaining. Cf. Western Union Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  16. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Kaw
    Search
  17. St. Louis S.W. R. Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  18. bargaining cannot be created consistently with the Federal Act. Nor can it be argued that our decision in Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  19. The National Labor Relations Act applies only to activities which affect interstate commerce. Labor Board v. Jones
    Search
  20. regulating those matters which, not being themselves interstate commerce, nevertheless affect the commerce, California v. Thompson
    Search
  21. Parker v. Brown
    Search
  22. s authority is curtailed only as Congress may by law prescribe in the exercise of the commerce power. United States v. Darby
    Search
  23. his functioning as a bargaining agent for employees under the National Labor Relations Act. Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin
    Search
  24. obstruct the exercise of rights conferred by the National Labor Relations Act or other federal legislation. Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  25. as against others as well as the employer, to make an uninhibited choice of their bargaining agents. Cf. United States v. Hutcheson
    Search
  26. it in no substantial way hinders or interferes with the performance of the union's functions under that Act. Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  27. Smith v. Illinois
    Search
  28. Western Distributing Co. v. Public
    Search
  29. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public
    Search
  30. Natural Gas Co. v. Slattery
    Search
  31. between the commerce clause or the federal statute and the local regulation which was found in Western Union Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  32. U. S. 530 , 125 U. S. 554 , and St. Louis S.W. R. Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  33. expressed Page 325 U. S. 547 in the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Union Brokerage Company v. Jensen
    Search
  34. power, even though it may affect such commerce, where the subject matter does not demand a nationwide rule. Willson v. Blackbird
    Search
  35. Cooley v. Board
    Search
  36. bearing upon that phase. In a great variety of cases, the Court has applied the accommodation formulated in Sinnot v. Davenport
    Search
  37. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber
    Search
  38. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harris
    Search
  39. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  40. Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  41. may so circumscribe its regulation as to leave a part of the subject open to state action. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia
    Search
  42. U. S. 280 , 234 U. S. 290 . Cf. Napier v. Atlantic
    Search
  43. U. S. 605 . The purpose exclusively to regulate need not be specifically declared. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Winfield
    Search
  44. Gilvary v. Cuyahoga
    Search
  45. had to yield. Charleston & W.C. R. Co. v. Varnville
    Search
  46. ceased when State action ran counter to the specific requirements of the Hepburn Act, 34 Stat. 5 4. Southern R. Co. v. Reid
    Search
  47. Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. v. Hardwick
    Search
  48. the hours of railroad employees could not survive a Congressional policy as to hours of service. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Washington
    Search
  49. cars with safety appliances superseded a State law dealing differently with such safety requirements. Southern R. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  50. death or injury of its employees, a State could not assert a different basis of responsibility. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Winfield
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial