29 U.S.C. § 101
Issuance of restraining orders and injunctions; limitation; public policy
No court of the United States, as defined in this chapter, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 830
cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1934–2026 · leading case: The Indep. Oil & Chem. Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927 (1st Cir. 1988).
The Indep. Oil & Chem. Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927 (1st Cir. 1988). “The district court, mindful of the interd-ictory provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., 1 took note of the circumscribed nature of its inquiry.”
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 640 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2011). “After receiving briefs and affidavits from the parties and hearing oral argument from counsel, the district court entered an order that enjoined the lockout.”
Atl. Coast Line R.R. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970). “The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. § 101 , and the Clayton Act, 29 U.”
United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947). “70 , 29 U.S.C. § 101 , and the War Labor Disputes Act, 57 Stat.”
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007). “Nothing prevents Congress from defining the "category" of excluded suits in any manner it wishes. See, e.”
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011). “The Players moved for a preliminary injunction in the district court, urging the court to enjoin the lockout as an unlawful group boycott that was causing irreparable harm to the Players.”
Firebird Structures, LCC v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, Local Union No. 1505, 252 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D.N.M. 2017). “l claim and Firebird Structures’ federal claim and state-law tort claims arise out of the samé set of factual assertions regarding the Carpenters’ Union’s alleged campaign against Firebird Structures; (ii) that the Norris-LaGuardia Act applies, because Firebird Structures and…”
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). “” In the NLRA and its forerunner, the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA), 29 U. S. C. §101 et seq., Congress acted on an acute awareness: For workers striving to gain from their employers decent terms and conditions of employment, there is strength in numbers.”
Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 457 U.S. 702 (1982). “70 , 29 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., apply to politically motivated work stoppages.”
BE&K Constr. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 536 U.S. 516 (2002). “When the Clayton Act proved insufficient, Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. § 101 , which made the labor injunction unlawful.”
Aircraft Serv. Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 117, 779 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2015). “Under Section 4, “in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute,” federal courts are prohibited from issuing an injunction to prohibit any person from “[c]easing or refusing to perform any work,” i.”
Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016). “Morris and McDaniel argue that their agreements with the company violate federal labor laws and cannot be enforced. They claim that the “separate proceedings” clause contravenes three federal statutes: the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.”
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.