18 U.S.C. § 3692
Jury trial for contempt in labor dispute cases
In all cases of contempt arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the contempt shall have been committed.
This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere directly with the administration of justice nor to the misbehavior, misconduct, or disobedience of any officer of the court in respect to the writs, orders or process of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases, 1948–2017 · leading case: Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (1975).
Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (1975). “§ 160 ( l ), has a right to a jury trial under 18 U. S. C. § 3692 , and whether the union has a right to a jury trial under the Constitution when charged with such a violation and a fine of as much as $10,000 is to be imposed.”
Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958). “§ 402 , supra, note 10; 18 U. S. C. § 3692 (jury trial for contempts based on violation of injunctions in cases involving labor disputes); § 151, 71 Stat.”
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968). “72 , § 11, now 18 U. S. C. § 3692 . The Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat.”
Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999). “” 18 U. S. C. § 3692 (c). Nonstatu-tory aggravators “may include factors concerning the effect of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family.”
Florida Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Bayou Shores SNF, LLC (In Re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC), 828 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2016). “32 Petitioners argued however that in recodifying § 11 of Norris-LaGuardia as 18 U.S.C. § 3692 in 1948, Congress had overruled its prior policy of not permitting jury trials in contempt actions to enforce injunctions issued under the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts.”
United States v. Jose L. Martinez, 686 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1982). “” Congress so provided, appellants declare, when it approved that portion of 18 U.S.C. § 3692 that reads as follows: In all eases of contempt arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing…”
Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 545 F.2d 1336 (3rd Cir. 1976). “” Local 1537 was not provided with such notice. And at no point in the proceedings was there an explicit reference to criminal contempt.”
United States v. Jorge Torrez, 869 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2017). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3692 (c)(4). The two relevant dates here are February 10, 2010, and February 27, 2010 — the two dates on which the Arlington Offenses were committed.”
Cna Fin. Corp. v. Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 830 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “18 U.S.C. § 3692 (1982). 115 . Muniz v. Hoffman, supra note 113, 422 U.”
United States v. Harry E. Robinson, United States of Am. v. Horace M. Disotell, 449 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1971). “Appellants contend they were entitled to a jury trial because Rule 42 (b) states that “defendant is entitled to a trial by jury in any case in which an act of Congress so provides,” and 18 U.S.C. § 3692 provides that a jury trial *932 shall be accorded “In all cases of contempt…”
In Re Union Nacional De Trabajadores, 502 F.2d 113 (1st Cir. 1974). “Up to this time only private employers could, under the very restrictive provisions of that Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-115 , obtain injunctive relief against a union and its officers.”
Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. United States, 411 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1969). “72 , now recodified in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3692 14 to “arising under *317 the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions * * * in any ease involving or growing out of a labor dispute”.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.