Citation network
United Public Workers Vs. Mitchell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 10, 1947
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. 75 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
U.S. 75 (1947) United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
in political activities sufficient to give them a right to maintain this suit. United Federal Workers of America (CIO) v. MitchellSearch
-
these appellants are classified employees, they have a right superior to the generality of citizens, compare Fairchild v. HughesSearch
-
Act, not the presentation of legal issues. It is beyond the competence of courts to render such a decision. Texas v. InterstateSearch
-
with rights of these appellants appears beyond that implied by the existence of the law and the regulations. Watson v. BuckSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The act provides no administrative or statutory review for the order of the Civil Service Commission. Compare Stark v. WickardSearch
-
Macauley v. WatermanSearch
-
in the courts, there is no problem of judicial discretion as to whether to take cognizance of this case. Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
Larson v. GeneralSearch
-
even though constitutional issues are involved, does not lie. See Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 57. Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Tunstall v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
In United States v. WurzbachSearch
-
of interference with the political rights of a citizen by that time was dismissed in a sentence. Compare United States v. ThayerSearch
-
Another controversy under the same act is decided today. Oklahoma v. UnitedSearch
-
In Myers v. BethlehemSearch
-
CIO), lacked capacity to bring this action is made by appellees. We need not consider the question here. McCandless v. FurlaudSearch
-
U. S. 67 , 293 U. S. 73 -74. See Fishgold v. SullivanSearch
-
Bingham v. MorrisSearch
-
Wall. 97, 70 U. S. 103 . Compare Griggsby v. PurcellSearch
-
Compare Georgia Lumber Co. v. CompaniaSearch
-
Alabama v. ArizonaSearch
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SecuritiesSearch
-
United States v. ApalachianSearch
-
Coffman v. BreezeSearch
-
U. S. 450 , 325 U. S. 461 , and cases cited. See Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-DetroitSearch
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. PacificSearch
-
Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. WallaceSearch
-
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. HaworthSearch
-
See White v. BerrySearch
-
by employees on the employer's property, even though carried out during nonworking hours. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NationalSearch
-
Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
De Jonge v. OregonSearch
-
Cox v. NewSearch
-
Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
McAuliffe v. NewSearch
-
to be made the basis of removing deserving employees from their jobs. See dissenting opinion, Williams v. NorthSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
United Federal Workers of America (CIO) v. MitchellSearch
-
Texas v. InterstateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial