Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rankin v. Shankergreen2 sentences1970The no-strike rule is not a restriction on the political activities of public employees. [2] In Rankin v. Shanker, supra, 23 N.Y.2d 111, 116 [ 295 N.Y.S.2d 625, 629 ], the court declared it "has been uniformly and consistently held that a legitimate distinction between public and private employment is constitutionally permissible" with regard to a law prohibiting strikes by public employees, and such a law does not violate the equal protection of the law guarantee. 1970The no-strike rule is not a restriction on the political activities of public employees. [2] In Rankin v. Shanker, supra, 23 N.Y.2d 111, 116 [ 295 N.Y.S.2d 625, 629 ], the court declared it "has been uniformly and consistently held that a legitimate distinction between public and private employment is constitutionally permissible" with regard to a law prohibiting strikes by public employees, and such a law does not violate the equal protection of the law guarantee. | 2 | 2 |
Drake Bakeries Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers Internationalgreen2 sentences1965I. (1961) 370 U.S. 254 [ 82 S.Ct. 1346 , 8 L.Ed.2d 474 ], the court held that an arbitration provision containing broad and comprehensive language did require arbitration of the union’s violation of a no-strike clause. 1965I. (1961) 370 U.S. 254 [ 82 S.Ct. 1346 , 8 L.Ed.2d 474 ], the court held that an arbitration provision containing broad and comprehensive language did require arbitration of the union’s violation of a no-strike clause. | 1 | 2 |
Vaca v. Sipesgreen2 sentences1968See also Vaca v. Sipes, supra, 386 U.S. 171, 185 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 842, 854 ].) Here by the lockout the employers did treat the collective bargaining agreement as terminated on October 5th, and in effect used self-help, inconsistent with the no-lockout clause of the grievance and arbitration provision, to enforce their view that no employment need be tendered to the employees. 1968See also Vaca v. Sipes, supra, 386 U.S. 171, 185 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 842, 854 ].) Here by the lockout the employers did treat the collective bargaining agreement as terminated on October 5th, and in effect used self-help, inconsistent with the no-lockout clause of the grievance and arbitration provision, to enforce their view that no employment need be tendered to the employees. | 1 | 1 |
Crestview Cemetery Ass'n v. Diedengreen2 sentences1965(Crestview Cemetery Assn. v. Dieden (1960) 54 Cal.2d 744, 752-754 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 427 , 356 P.2d 171 ].) Although appellant relies upon a number of decisions holding that an employer need not arbitrate the union’s violation of a no-strike clause prior to commencing an action to recover *103 damages therefor, all of the authorities cited are either readily distinguishable or are based upon nonpersuasive reasoning. 1965(Crestview Cemetery Assn. v. Dieden (1960) 54 Cal.2d 744, 752-754 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 427 , 356 P.2d 171 ].) Although appellant relies upon a number of decisions holding that an employer need not arbitrate the union’s violation of a no-strike clause prior to commencing an action to recover *103 damages therefor, all of the authorities cited are either readily distinguishable or are based upon nonpersuasive reasoning. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Charles J. Rounds Co. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42
green
1 sentence2000The relief sought, damages, is traditionally within an arbitrator’s power to award. [Citation.] Defendant until long after this suit was filed sought to compel arbitration, and asserted plaintiff’s failure to arbitrate or seek arbitration as an affirmative defense.” (Rounds, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 899 .) The Supreme Court went on in the next sentence—a sentence not quoted by the Siegels—to state, “What remedies plaintiff may have to now compel arbitration must await assertion of that right. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson
red
2 sentences1985In Boys Markets v. Clerks Union (1970) 398 U.S. 235 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 199 , 90 S.Ct. 1583 ], the United States Supreme Court rejected a similar contention in deciding to review and overrule its decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson (1962) 370 U.S. 195 [ 8 L.Ed.2d 440 , 82 S.Ct. 1328 ], which held that section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 104 ) bars a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike clause in a collective-bargaining agreement, even though the agreement contains binding arbitration provisions enforceable under section 301(a) of the Labor 1985In Boys Markets v. Clerks Union (1970) 398 U.S. 235 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 199 , 90 S.Ct. 1583 ], the United States Supreme Court rejected a similar contention in deciding to review and overrule its decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson (1962) 370 U.S. 195 [ 8 L.Ed.2d 440 , 82 S.Ct. 1328 ], which held that section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 104 ) bars a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike clause in a collective-bargaining agreement, even though the agreement contains binding arbitration provisions enforceable under section 301(a) of the Labor | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770
green
2 sentences1985In Boys Markets v. Clerks Union (1970) 398 U.S. 235 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 199 , 90 S.Ct. 1583 ], the United States Supreme Court rejected a similar contention in deciding to review and overrule its decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson (1962) 370 U.S. 195 [ 8 L.Ed.2d 440 , 82 S.Ct. 1328 ], which held that section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 104 ) bars a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike clause in a collective-bargaining agreement, even though the agreement contains binding arbitration provisions enforceable under section 301(a) of the Labor 1985In Boys Markets v. Clerks Union (1970) 398 U.S. 235 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 199 , 90 S.Ct. 1583 ], the United States Supreme Court rejected a similar contention in deciding to review and overrule its decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson (1962) 370 U.S. 195 [ 8 L.Ed.2d 440 , 82 S.Ct. 1328 ], which held that section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 104 ) bars a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike clause in a collective-bargaining agreement, even though the agreement contains binding arbitration provisions enforceable under section 301(a) of the Labor | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Shanker v. Rankin
green
2 sentences1970An appeal in this case to the United States Supreme Court was dismissed ( Shanker v. Rankin, 396 U.S. 120 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 305 , 90 S.Ct. 396 ]). 1970An appeal in this case to the United States Supreme Court was dismissed ( Shanker v. Rankin, 396 U.S. 120 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 305 , 90 S.Ct. 396 ]). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
International Nickel Co. v. City of Bayonne
green
1 sentence1970An appeal in this case to the United States Supreme Court was dismissed ( Shanker v. Rankin, 396 U.S. 120 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 305 , 90 S.Ct. 396 ]). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.
green
2 sentences1965Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. (1961) 370 U.S. 238 [ 82 S.Ct. 1318 , 8 L.Ed.2d 462 ], is of no benefit to appellant, since the collective bargaining agreement in that ease did not allow for arbitration at the behest of the employer, and provided only for the arbitration of employee grievances at the option of the union. 1965Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. (1961) 370 U.S. 238 [ 82 S.Ct. 1318 , 8 L.Ed.2d 462 ], is of no benefit to appellant, since the collective bargaining agreement in that ease did not allow for arbitration at the behest of the employer, and provided only for the arbitration of employee grievances at the option of the union. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Cone v. Union Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1965A similar failure was before the reviewing court in the case of Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558 [ 277 P.2d 464 ], where it was held that the granting of summary judgment was proper when it appeared that the plaintiff was a party to a collective bargaining agreement and had failed to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures therein provided for prior to commencing an action for breach of said agreement. 1965A similar failure was before the reviewing court in the case of Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558 [ 277 P.2d 464 ], where it was held that the granting of summary judgment was proper when it appeared that the plaintiff was a party to a collective bargaining agreement and had failed to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures therein provided for prior to commencing an action for breach of said agreement. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
McCarroll v. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters
green
2 sentences1961That ease, at page 111, quoted from Southside Theatres v. Moving Picture Projectionists Local, 131 Cal.App.2d 798 , at pages 802-803 [ 281 P.2d 31 ], as follows: “Any controversy under a collective bargaining contract which requires first a determination that the contract does or does not define the rights or duties of the parties in an existing situation is subject to arbitration if the agreement provides for the arbitration of disputes that arise out of the contract.” In McCarroll v. Los Angeles County etc. Carpenters, supra, 49 Cal.2d 45 , an order granting a preliminary injunction against 1961While this court there rejected the arguments that the issue involved was referable to arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement, and that the employer was precluded from maintaining the action, it expressly recognized that “ [t]he arbitrability of a dispute may itself be subject to arbitration if the parties have so provided in their contract” ( 49 Cal.2d at p. 65 ), and that “ [a]ll strikes during the life of a contract are not necessarily violations of a no-strike clause, even though on its face the prohibition appears to be absolute.” ( 49 Cal.2d at p. 66 .) This latter stateme | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Southside Theatres, Inc. v. Moving Picture Projectionists
green
2 sentences1961That ease, at page 111, quoted from Southside Theatres v. Moving Picture Projectionists Local, 131 Cal.App.2d 798 , at pages 802-803 [ 281 P.2d 31 ], as follows: “Any controversy under a collective bargaining contract which requires first a determination that the contract does or does not define the rights or duties of the parties in an existing situation is subject to arbitration if the agreement provides for the arbitration of disputes that arise out of the contract.” In McCarroll v. Los Angeles County etc. Carpenters, supra, 49 Cal.2d 45 , an order granting a preliminary injunction against 1961That ease, at page 111, quoted from Southside Theatres v. Moving Picture Projectionists Local, 131 Cal.App.2d 798 , at pages 802-803 [ 281 P.2d 31 ], as follows: “Any controversy under a collective bargaining contract which requires first a determination that the contract does or does not define the rights or duties of the parties in an existing situation is subject to arbitration if the agreement provides for the arbitration of disputes that arise out of the contract.” In McCarroll v. Los Angeles County etc. Carpenters, supra, 49 Cal.2d 45 , an order granting a preliminary injunction against | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Ingle Coal Corp. v. United States
green
2 sentences1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U. S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants’ breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation’ of the no-strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. 1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen's Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U.S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants' breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation of the no- strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Gilmore v. United States
green
2 sentences1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U. S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants’ breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation’ of the no-strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. 1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen's Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U.S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants' breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation of the no- strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Kermath Manufacturing Co. v. Brownell
green
2 sentences1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U. S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants’ breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation’ of the no-strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. 1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen's Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U.S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants' breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation of the no- strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Phila. Mar. Assn. v. Longshoremen's Assn.
green
2 sentences1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U. S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants’ breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation’ of the no-strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. 1957(See Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. International Longshoremen's Assn., 382 Pa. 326 [ 115 A.2d 733 , 738], cert. denied, 350 U.S. 843 [ 76 S.Ct. 84 , 100 L.Ed. 751 ].) Plaintiffs take the position that defendants' breach of contract is not an issue referable to arbitration because by striking in violation of the no- strike clause defendants have themselves repudiated the arbitration procedure. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.