U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 6— JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN MATTERS AFFECTING EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

29 U.S.C. § 104

Enumeration of specific acts not subject to restraining orders or injunctions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:(a) Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment;(b) Becoming or remaining a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title;(c) Paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person participating or interested in such labor dispute, any strike or unemployment benefits or insurance, or other moneys or things of value;(d) By all lawful means aiding any person participating or interested in any labor dispute who is being proceeded against in, or is prosecuting, any action or suit in any court of the United States or of any State;(e) Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence;(f) Assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute;(g) Advising or notifying any person of an intention to do any of the acts heretofore specified;(h) Agreeing with other persons to do or not to do any of the acts heretofore specified; and(i) Advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts heretofore specified, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title.(Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, § 4, 47 Stat. 70.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 527 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1934–2026 · leading case: Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 640 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 640 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 10× “29 U.S.C. § 104 . One of these acts is "refusing .”
Firebird Structures, LCC v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, Local Union No. 1505, 252 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D.N.M. 2017). · cites it 18× “§ 106 , to establish by “clear proof’ that the Carpenters’ Union authorized or was otherwise involved in the alleged tortious conduct; (vi) that the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s § 4, 29 U.S.C. § 104 , deprives the Court of jurisdiction to enjoin the Carpenters’ Union from certain…”
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). · cites it 2× “, 29 U. S. C. §104 (d) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin a person from “aiding any person participating or interested in any labor dispute who is being proceeded against in, or [who] is prosecuting, any action or suit in any court of the United States or of any State”).”
Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 457 U.S. 702 (1982). · cites it 6× “70 , 29 U. S. C. § 104 . *708 Congress adopted this broad prohibition to remedy the growing tendency of federal courts to enjoin strikes by narrowly construing the Clayton Act's labor exemption from the Sherman Act's prohibition against conspiracies to restrain trade, see 29 U.”
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007). · cites it 2× “" Here, by contrast, the text says "[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section.”
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 (1974). · cites it 4× “70 , 29 U. S. C. § 104 , barred federal courts from issuing an injunction against a strike allegedly in violation of a collective-bargaining agreement containing a no-strike clause.”
Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984). · cites it 2× “501; and the Norris-La Guardia Act, 29 U. S. C. § 104 , see Boys Markets, Inc.”
Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970). · cites it 4× “Congress in 1932 enacted the Norris-LaGuardia Act, § 4 of which, 29 U. S. C. § 104 , with exceptions not here relevant, specifically prohibited federal courts in the broadest and most comprehensive language from *256 issuing any injunctions, temporary or permanent, against…”
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “Section 4 of the NLGA, 29 U.S.C. § 104 , is entitled, "Enumeration of specific acts not subject to restraining orders or injunctions.”
Aircraft Serv. Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 117, 779 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “erform any work or to remain in any relation of employment; (b) Becoming or remaining a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title; (c) Paying or giving to, or…”
Chicago & North W. Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 402 U.S. 570 (1971). · cites it 4× “70 , 71, 72, 29 U. S. C. §§ 104 , 107, 108, [2] deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to issue a strike injunction and that in any event the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
First Nat'l Maint. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 452 U.S. 666 (1981). · cites it 2× “, at 341 , and that the District Court was precluded from enjoining the threatened strike by § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. § 104 , which deprives federal courts of "jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case…”
Show all 527 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 104(a) — 3 cases
Rosa M. Figueroa De Arroyo v. Sindicato De Trabajadores Packinghouse, Afl-Cio, & Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 425 F.2d 281 (1st Cir. 1970).
The Drummond Co., a Corp. v. Dist. 20, United Mine Workers of Am., 598 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1979).
Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Aleo Mfg. Co., 94 F. Supp. 626 (M.D.N.C. 1950).
— 29 U.S.C. § 104(b) — 1 case
United States v. Los Angeles Meat & Provision Drivers Union, 196 F. Supp. 12 (S.D. Cal. 1961).
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.