United Mine Workers v. Pennington

E666874

United Mine Workers v. Pennington is a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that examined whether a union’s collective bargaining activities with employers could be subject to Sherman Act liability.

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (45)

Predicate Object
instanceOf U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ
antitrust case ⓘ
labor law case ⓘ
affects scope of nonstatutory labor exemption to antitrust laws ⓘ
areaOfLaw U.S. federal antitrust law ⓘ
U.S. federal labor law ⓘ
citation 381 U.S. 657 ⓘ
concernedActivity alleged conspiracy to eliminate competition among coal operators ⓘ
collective bargaining over wage rates ⓘ
concernedIndustry coal industry ⓘ
concurringOpinionBy Justice Douglas ⓘ
linked to: William Douglas
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1965-04-05 ⓘ
decisionType majority decision with dissents ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy Justice Fortas ⓘ
linked to: Abe Fortas

Justice Goldberg ⓘ
Justice Harlan ⓘ
linked to: John M. Harlan II

Justice Stewart ⓘ
docketNumber No. 83 ⓘ
fullName United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington ⓘ
holding A union and employers may be subject to Sherman Act liability when they combine to impose a wage scale intended to drive competitors out of business. ⓘ
Union conduct is not automatically exempt from antitrust laws when it involves combinations with nonlabor groups to achieve anticompetitive objectives. ⓘ
involvesParty Pennington ⓘ
United Mine Workers of America ⓘ
issue Whether a union’s collective bargaining activities with employers can be subject to Sherman Act liability. ⓘ
jurisdiction federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
legalSubject Clayton Act ⓘ
Sherman Act ⓘ
antitrust law ⓘ
collective bargaining ⓘ
labor law ⓘ
nonstatutory labor exemption ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Justice White ⓘ
pageInUnitedStatesReports 657 ⓘ
proceduralPosture appeal from the United States Court of Appeals ⓘ
relatedCase Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 ⓘ
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader ⓘ
Local 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co. ⓘ
relatedDoctrine labor antitrust exemption ⓘ
statuteInterpreted Clayton Act ⓘ
Sherman Antitrust Act ⓘ
subsequentCitationFrequency frequently cited ⓘ
volumeOfUnitedStatesReports 381 ⓘ
yearDecided 1965 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited → relatedCase → United Mine Workers v. Pennington ⓘ
Noerr-Pennington doctrine → extendedInCase → United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington ⓘ
linked to: United Mine Workers v. Pennington
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. → laterClarifiedBy → United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington ⓘ
linked to: United Mine Workers v. Pennington
United Mine Workers v. Pennington → fullName → United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington ⓘ
linked to: United Mine Workers v. Pennington
City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. → relatedDoctrine → United Mine Workers v. Pennington ⓘ