J.A. Croson Company

14 Cited authorities

California Labor Stds. Enf. v. Dillingham Constr
519 U.S. 316 (1997) Cited 736 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that ERISA did not pre-empt a California statute that incentivized, but did not require, plans to follow certain standards for apprenticeship programs
San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,553 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
461 U.S. 731 (1983) Cited 976 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law
BEK CONSTR. CO. v. NLRB
536 U.S. 516 (2002) Cited 307 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the First Amendment right to petition the government extends to the courts
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters
436 U.S. 180 (1978) Cited 553 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA
Garner v. Teamsters Union
346 U.S. 485 (1953) Cited 690 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Garner the emphasis was not on two conflicting labor statutes but rather on two similar remedies, one state and one federal, brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Natural Gas Utility District
402 U.S. 600 (1971) Cited 187 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding utility district was political subdivision under that standard
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-Finch Co.
404 U.S. 138 (1971) Cited 162 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized
Sellers v. School Bd. of City Manassas
525 U.S. 871 (1998) Cited 30 times
Stating that the "solely because of" standard applies to claims asserted under the Rehabilitation Act
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Local 302 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Local 180 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Local 332 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Local 340 IBEW; Local 442 IBEW; Local 551 IBEW; Local 591 IBEW; Local 595 IBEW; Local 617 IBEW; Local 684 IBEW
109 F.3d 1353 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 53 times
Holding that extending preemption to permit parties to immunize their conduct from state law by including it in a labor contract "clearly exceeds the scope of § 301 preemption intended by Congress"

J.A. Croson Company

14 Cited authorities

Holding that ERISA did not pre-empt a California statute that incentivized, but did not require, plans to follow certain standards for apprenticeship programs

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

Holding that the First Amendment right to petition the government extends to the courts

Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

In Garner the emphasis was not on two conflicting labor statutes but rather on two similar remedies, one state and one federal, brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.

Holding utility district was political subdivision under that standard

Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized

Stating that the "solely because of" standard applies to claims asserted under the Rehabilitation Act

Holding that extending preemption to permit parties to immunize their conduct from state law by including it in a labor contract "clearly exceeds the scope of § 301 preemption intended by Congress"