Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA et al., Defendants-Appellants, District 20, United Mine Workers of America; and Local 892, United Mine Workers of America, Defendants-Appellants, 1976 — 526 F.2d 376 · caselaw · US
Corporations
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA et al., Defendants-Appellants, District 20, United Mine Workers of America; and Local 892, United Mine Workers of America, Defendants-Appellants
526 F.2d 376·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1976
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA et al., Defendants-Appellants, District 20, United Mine Workers of America; and Local 892, United Mine Workers of America, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 74-2610.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 26, 1976.
William E. Mitch, Birmingham, Ala., Jack Drake, Tuscaloosa, Ala., Harrison Combs, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants.
M. L. Taliaferro, C. V. Stelzenmuller, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
John J. Coleman, Jr., James P. Alexander, Stephen E. Brown, Birmingham, Ala., amicus curiae in support of petition for rehearing for U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co.
Charles F. Wilson, Tampa, Fla., amicus curiae in support of petition for rehearing.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion Sept. 24, 1975, 5 Cir. 1975, 519 F.2d 1236).
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
In this Circuit “an injunction [against a strike] is permissible only if the underlying dispute ‘over’ which the strike [is] called is arbitrable”. Amstar v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 5 Cir. 1972, 468 F.2d 1372. The petition for rehearing is denied without prejudice to the petitioner to renew its petition for rehearing, should the United States Supreme Court hold that the existence of a strike is itself an arbitrable issue. See Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 2 Cir. 1975, 517 F.2d 1207, cert. granted, 423 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 214, 46 L.Ed.2d 139 (Oct. 20, 1975).
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.