5 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1952–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Carpenter v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022Va. Mar. 3, 2022) (finding a Google geofence warrant invalid where it did not establish particularized probable cause to search every person within a particular area and warning that “[a]s Fourth Amendment law develops in a slow drip, ‘technology [continues to] enhance[ ] the Government’s capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes’” (quoting Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2214 (2018))); cf. Matter of Search Warrant Application for Geofence -5- timeframe.” From that information, Gathright concluded that “the same device . . . was [present] at all three | 1 | 1 |
Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.green2 sentences1983The Court stated that the “efficiency in adjudication” which would result from supplanting “the present disarray in this area with a rule both simpler and more just,” 398 U.S. at 405 , justified overruling The Harrisburg . 1983The Court announced “a new remedial rule to effectuate well-established primary rules of behavior.” Id. at 403. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302 v. Angelos
green
2 sentences1952In Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 293 , 64 S. Ct. 126 , 88 ed. 58, cited in both the Edwards and Mc-Whorter Cases, the court reversed an order enjoining the union from picketing at or near Angelos ’ place of business as' being-illegal restraint upon “the right of workers to state their case and to appeal for public support in an orderly and peaceful manner regardless of the area of immunity as defined by state policy.” That case also held that the use of the words “unfair to organized labor” is ‘‘part of the conventional give-and-take, in our economic and political controversi 1952In Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 293 , 64 S. Ct. 126 , 88 ed. 58, cited in both the Edwards and Mc-Whorter Cases, the court reversed an order enjoining the union from picketing at or near Angelos ’ place of business as' being-illegal restraint upon “the right of workers to state their case and to appeal for public support in an orderly and peaceful manner regardless of the area of immunity as defined by state policy.” That case also held that the use of the words “unfair to organized labor” is ‘‘part of the conventional give-and-take, in our economic and political controversi | 2 | 1952–1952 |
Blossom Dairy Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
green
2 sentences1952In Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 293 , 64 S. Ct. 126 , 88 ed. 58, cited in both the Edwards and Mc-Whorter Cases, the court reversed an order enjoining the union from picketing at or near Angelos ’ place of business as' being-illegal restraint upon “the right of workers to state their case and to appeal for public support in an orderly and peaceful manner regardless of the area of immunity as defined by state policy.” That case also held that the use of the words “unfair to organized labor” is ‘‘part of the conventional give-and-take, in our economic and political controversi 1952In Cafeteria Employees Union Angelos, 320 U.S. 293 , 64 S.Ct. 126 , 88 L.ed. 58, cited in both the Edwards and McWhorter Cases, the court reversed an order enjoining the union from picketing at or near Angelos' place of business as being illegal restraint upon "the right of workers to state their case and to appeal for public support in an orderly and peaceful manner regardless of the area of immunity as defined by state policy." That case also held that the use of the words "unfair to organized labor" is "part of the conventional give-and-take in our economic and political controversies" and | 2 | 1952–1952 |
Anderson v. Florence
green
1 sentence1978If counsel could be guided by the general principles as they are set forth in the case of Anderson v. Florence, supra, and in the Rogotzki v. Schept case, I doubt that it would be necessary for this matter to be brought back to the court for additional ruling. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
American Federation of Labor v. Swing
red
2 sentences1952In American Federation of Labor Swing, 312 U.S. 321 , 61 S.Ct. 568 , 85 L.ed. 855, also cited in the Edwards and McWhorter Cases, an injunction had been granted against picketing on the ground that "peaceful persuasion" was forbidden because those who were enjoined were not in Swing's employ. 1952In American Federation of Labor Swing, 312 U.S. 321 , 61 S.Ct. 568 , 85 L.ed. 855, also cited in the Edwards and McWhorter Cases, an injunction had been granted against picketing on the ground that "peaceful persuasion" was forbidden because those who were enjoined were not in Swing's employ. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.