Bethlehem Mines Corporation, a West Virginia Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The integrity of the judicial process demands compliance with court orders until such time as they are altered by orderly appellate review. “The concept of ‘a government of laws and not of men,’ describes a critical quality of our political society. So strongly did the framers of the Constitution determine to secure a reign of law that they conferred unusual safeguards on the judicial office. No one, no matter what his position, nor how virtuous his impulse, was to be a judge in his own case. * -X- -X- * -X- * “Plaintiff here sought the aid of a court in circumstances attended with some doubt. Only when a court so obviously journeys outside its prescribed range as to be usurping judicial form may an order issued by it be disregarded. Whether a party may be called to the bar of justice is not for that party, himself, to decide. * * * * # * “By deliberately disobeying the district court, the defendant attempted to take upon itself the power to determine what is law and, in doing so, subjected itself to civil contempt.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 393 F. Supp. 942 - United States Steel Corp. v. UNITED MINE WKRS. OF AM. · In Re Nail

2. “Plaintiff, Bethlehem Mines Corp., brought suit under section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 against the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 2, and Local 1368. Alleging an illegal strike in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, Bethlehem Mines sought to compel the defendants to return to work and to arbitrate the dispute. On February 18, 1971, the district court held a hearing on plaintiffs application for a temporary restraining order and, after noting that the involved employees had returned to work, decided to take no action other than to retain jurisdiction. On February 26, 1971, after another work stoppage, the district court held a further hearing and entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the strike and directing arbitration of the dispute. On March 4, 1971, the temporary restraining order was continued until March 9, 1971. After further proceedings, the district court, at a hearing on March 9,1971, orally continued the temporary restraining order as a preliminary injunction, without objection from the defendants. Defendants neither moved to vacate the temporary restraining order or the preliminary injunction continuing it, nor did they file an appeal. On May 26, 1971, the district court, on plaintiffs motion, issued a rule to show cause why defendant Local 1368 should not be adjudged in civil contempt because of further work stoppages. Hearing on this motion was continued. On August 19, 1971, however, after another work ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Nail

3. “[ 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-115 ] delimits the power of federal courts to issue injunctions, it does not remove federal jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies properly before the court. Even assuming, arguendo, that the ... court may be ultimately deemed without power to grant a particular form of relief, that does not imply that the court is entirely without jurisdiction to determine, by an appropriate hearing, whether to consider the matter at all.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rath Packing Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (In Re Rath Packing Co.)