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.
Muniz et al. v. Hoffman, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, 1974 — 419 U.S. 992 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Muniz et al. v. Hoffman, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board
419 U.S. 992·Supreme Court of the United States·1974
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. 73-1924.
Muniz et al. v. Hoffman, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 3 and 4 presented by the petition which read as follows:
“3. Whether petitioners, charged with criminal contempt for an alleged violation of an injunction issued under the National Labor Relations Act, are entitled to a trial by jury under 18 U. S. C. § 3692, which provides that alleged contemnors are entitled to a jury trial in all contempt cases ‘arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.’
“4. Whether Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution mandate a jury trial where a penalty of $25,000.00 is assessed against a labor organization in a criminal contempt proceeding.”