Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Dissent
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
dissenting.*
The Court has avoided the difficult problems raised by § 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. *461§ 185,1 by attributing to the section an occult content. This plainly procedural section is transmuted into a mandate to the federal courts to fashion a whole body of substantive federal law appropriate for the complicated and touchy problems raised by collective bargaining. I have set forth in my opinion in Employees v. Westinghouse Corp. the detailed reasons why I believe that § 301 cannot be so construed, even if constitutional questions *462cannot…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCannSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.