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.
Fur Workers Union No. 21238 v. Fur Workers Union, Local No. 72, et al., 1939 — 308 U.S. 522 · caselaw · US
General
Fur Workers Union No. 21238 v. Fur Workers Union, Local No. 72, et al.
308 U.S. 522·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 80.
Fur Workers Union No. 21238 v. Fur Workers Union, Local No. 72, et al.
Argued December 6, 1939.
Decided December 11, 1939.
Mr. Irvin Goldstein for petitioner.
Messrs. Samuel Levine, Sidney C. Schlemiger, and Louis B. Boudin were on a brief for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed. Lauf v. E. G. Skinner & Co., 303 U. S. 323; New Negro Alliance v. Grocery Co., 303 U. S. 552. Cf. Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U. S. 468.