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.
American Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1940 — 309 U.S. 629 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
American Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
309 U.S. 629·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
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. 664.
American Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
March 11, 1940.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. Section 2 (g) (3) of the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals is modified so as to read as follows:
“(3) that the individual contracts'of employment entered into between the respondent and some of its employees were made by the respondent in violation of the National Labor Relations Act; and that the respondent will no longer offer, solicit, enter into, continue, enforce, or attempt to enforce such contracts with its employees; but this is without prejudice to the assertion by the employees of any legal rights they may have acquired under such contracts.”
As so modified the order is affirmed. National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, ante, p. 350. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that the order should be affirmed without modification.
Mr. Thomas F. Magner for petitioner.
Solicitor General Biddle' and Mr. Charles Fahy for respondent.