HANNA MINING CO. ET AL.

v.

DISTRICT 2, MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1965)
  …satisfaction of the jury . . . .” This instruction and the statutory inference which it embodied were held by the Court of Appeals to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We granted certiorari to consider this constitutional issue. 380 U. S. 941. We agree as to the invalidity of § 5601 (b)(1) and the reversal of the convictions on Count 1. It is unnecessary, however, to consider the validity of § 5601 (b)(4) and the convictions on Count 2 since the sentences on that count were concurrent w…
• Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1966)
  …uested the parties to brief and argue, in addition to the questions presented in the petition for certiorari, the question whether respondent was a “public official” under New York Times and under our decision in Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64. 380 U. S. 941. The Recreation Area was used principally as a ski resort but also for other recreational activities. Respondent was employed by and directly responsible to the Belknap County Commissioners, three elected officials in charge of the county governmen…
• Hanna Mining Co. v. Dist. 2, Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n, AFL-CIO, 382 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1965)
  …§ 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 “protected by § 7, or prohibited by…