Union rule (Mississippi) · Go Syfert
← Mississippi issues

Union rule in Mississippi

5 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1956–1999 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Carter v. Allstate Indem. Co.green
miss · 1991 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999"The purpose of the union or standard mortgage clause is to protect the mortgagee from loss occurring after the mortgagor or owner has caused a lapse in insurance coverage." Carter v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 592 So.2d 66, 71 (Miss.1991).

11
Highlands Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Companygreen
ca5 · 1982 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
1 sentence

1991Highlands Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, 688 F.2d 398, 406 (5th Cir.1982).

11
Hennessey v. Helgasongreen
miss · 1934 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
2 sentences

1975See Hennessey v. Helgason, 168 Miss. 834 , 151 So. 724 (1934); Mechanics and Traders Ins.

1975See Hennessey v. Helgason, 168 Miss. 834 , 151 So. 724 (1934); Mechanics and Traders Ins.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
American Dredging Company v. Local 25 green
ca3 · 1964
1 sentence

1968The United States Supreme Court in the Avco case, supra, upheld the Sixth Circuit decision in Avco, 376 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1967) and overturned that portion of American Dredging Company v. Local 25, Marine Division, etc., 338 F.2d 837 (3rd Cir.1964), which had held that a Pennsylvania court action under Pennsylvania law to enjoin a Union's violation of no-strike provisions of the contract was not one in which a federal court had subject matter jurisdiction within the original jurisdiction provision of the removal statute.

11968–1968
Avco Corporation v. Aero Lodge No. 735, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospaceworkers green
ca6 · 1967
1 sentence

1968The United States Supreme Court in the Avco case, supra, upheld the Sixth Circuit decision in Avco, 376 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1967) and overturned that portion of American Dredging Company v. Local 25, Marine Division, etc., 338 F.2d 837 (3rd Cir.1964), which had held that a Pennsylvania court action under Pennsylvania law to enjoin a Union's violation of no-strike provisions of the contract was not one in which a federal court had subject matter jurisdiction within the original jurisdiction provision of the removal statute.

11968–1968
Bigger v. Unemployment Compensation Commission green
del · 1947
1 sentence

1956Contractors Ass’n, Intervener) v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Department of Labor and Industry (Seifing, Intervener), 356 Pa. 43 , 50 A. 2d 336 ; Harvey Edward Chambers v. Owens-Ames-Kimball Company et al., 146 Ohio St. 559 , 67 N.E. 2d 439 , 165 A.L.R. 1373 . *797 “As used in the statute, the words ‘available for work’ imply that in order that an unemployed individual may be ‘ eligible to receive benefits ’ he must be willing to ac- *798 In Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Bigger, 43 Del. 553 , 53 Atl. 2d 761, the Court said: “There is no need, for present purposes, to q

11956–1956
Chambers v. Owens-Ames-Kimball Co. green
· 1946
2 sentences

1956Contractors Ass’n, Intervener) v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Department of Labor and Industry (Seifing, Intervener), 356 Pa. 43 , 50 A. 2d 336 ; Harvey Edward Chambers v. Owens-Ames-Kimball Company et al., 146 Ohio St. 559 , 67 N.E. 2d 439 , 165 A.L.R. 1373 . *797 “As used in the statute, the words ‘available for work’ imply that in order that an unemployed individual may be ‘ eligible to receive benefits ’ he must be willing to ac- *798 In Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Bigger, 43 Del. 553 , 53 Atl. 2d 761, the Court said: “There is no need, for present purposes, to q

1956Contractors Ass’n, Intervener) v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Department of Labor and Industry (Seifing, Intervener), 356 Pa. 43 , 50 A. 2d 336 ; Harvey Edward Chambers v. Owens-Ames-Kimball Company et al., 146 Ohio St. 559 , 67 N.E. 2d 439 , 165 A.L.R. 1373 . *797 “As used in the statute, the words ‘available for work’ imply that in order that an unemployed individual may be ‘ eligible to receive benefits ’ he must be willing to ac- *798 In Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Bigger, 43 Del. 553 , 53 Atl. 2d 761, the Court said: “There is no need, for present purposes, to q

11956–1956
Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green
pa · 1946
2 sentences

1956Contractors Ass’n, Intervener) v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Department of Labor and Industry (Seifing, Intervener), 356 Pa. 43 , 50 A. 2d 336 ; Harvey Edward Chambers v. Owens-Ames-Kimball Company et al., 146 Ohio St. 559 , 67 N.E. 2d 439 , 165 A.L.R. 1373 . *797 “As used in the statute, the words ‘available for work’ imply that in order that an unemployed individual may be ‘ eligible to receive benefits ’ he must be willing to ac- *798 In Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Bigger, 43 Del. 553 , 53 Atl. 2d 761, the Court said: “There is no need, for present purposes, to q

1956Contractors Ass’n, Intervener) v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Department of Labor and Industry (Seifing, Intervener), 356 Pa. 43 , 50 A. 2d 336 ; Harvey Edward Chambers v. Owens-Ames-Kimball Company et al., 146 Ohio St. 559 , 67 N.E. 2d 439 , 165 A.L.R. 1373 . *797 “As used in the statute, the words ‘available for work’ imply that in order that an unemployed individual may be ‘ eligible to receive benefits ’ he must be willing to ac- *798 In Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Bigger, 43 Del. 553 , 53 Atl. 2d 761, the Court said: “There is no need, for present purposes, to q

11956–1956

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 83-13-9 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 42 (1903–2025) CA 30 (1919–2025) PA 21 (1868–2026) TX 14 (1879–2015) NY 13 (1891–2014) FL 11 (1959–2003) WA 10 (1954–2024) AL 8 (1943–2011) MO 7 (1984–2007) CT 7 (1930–2015) MS 5 (1956–1999) IN 5 (1973–2026) NJ 5 (1956–2004) WV 4 (1899–1974) LA 4 (1984–2011) MI 4 (1962–2016) WI 4 (1979–2008) KY 4 (1908–1989) RI 4 (1990–2007) MA 3 (1995–2017) OH 3 (2006–2022) OK 3 (1935–1996) DC 3 (1979–2010) ME 3 (1914–2000) GA 3 (1995–1998) MD 2 (2005–2006) HI 2 (1981–2000) NE 2 (1998–1999) NV 2 (1966–1966) DE 2 (1947–1971) AR 2 (1991–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check