PEEK

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.; CORONADO V. CALIFORNIA; ALEXANDER V. GREEN, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; MURPHY V. FLORIDA; AND RANCE V. WARDEN, U. S. PENITENTIARY, TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA

Citator

Cited By

• Hanna Mining Co. v. Dist. 2, Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n, AFL-CIO, 382 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1965)
  …nsel’s dismissal of charges under §§ 8 (b)(4)(B) and 8 (b)(7) did not foreclose the possibility of a preempting violation, even assuming the 1963 picketing in Superior mirrored the 1962 picketing in Duluth. We invited the views of the United States, 379 U. S. 942, granted certiorari, 380 U. S. 941, and now reverse and remand. I — I t — l The ground rules for preemption in labor law, emerging from our Garmon decision, should first be briefly summarized: in general, a State may not regulate conduct arguably…
• Parsons v. Buckley, 379 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1965)
  …ph (3) of the judgment of the District Court. On December 14, 1964, we noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals, stáyed that portion of the judgment which is the subject of these appeals, and set these cases for oral argument on January 18, 1965. 379 U. S. 942. All of the parties to and intervenors in these cases have now moved that this Court modify the District Court’s judgment to conform to a Stipulation signed by them and affirm the judgment of the District Court as so modified. The parties stipulat…