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.
Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees; United Air Lines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board et al.; and National Mediation Board et al. v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, 1964 — 379 U.S. 814 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees; United Air Lines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board et al.; and National Mediation Board et al. v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees
379 U.S. 814·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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
No. 138.
No. 139.
No. 369.
Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees; United Air Lines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board et al.; and National Mediation Board et al. v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees.
Milton Kramer and James L. High-saw, Jr., for petitioner in No. 138. H. Templeton Brown, Robert L. Stern and Stuart Bernstein for petitioner in No. 139. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and John C. Eldridge for petitioners in No. 369. Jerome C. Muys for respondent in Nos. 138 and 369. Solicitor General Cox for respondénts in No. 139. Edward J. Hickey, Jr., and William G. Mahoney for Railway Labor Executives’ Association, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition in No. 138.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of two hours is allotted for oral argument.
Reported below: 117 U. S. App. D. C. 387, 330 F. 2d 853.