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.
Local No. 438 Construction & General Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO, v. Curry et al., doing business as S. J. Curry & Co., 1962 — 369 U.S. 883 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Local No. 438 Construction & General Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO, v. Curry et al., doing business as S. J. Curry & Co.
369 U.S. 883·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
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. 839.
Local No. 438 Construction & General Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO, v. Curry et al., doing business as S. J. Curry & Co.
[MAJORITY]
The petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia is granted limited to the question of whether the Supreme Court of Georgia erred as stated in Questions (d), (h) and (i) of the petition which read as follows:
“(d) In holding that it was illegal for the Petitioner to carry a placard in front of the construction job containing the statement: ‘S. J. Curry & Company, Inc., violating contract with City of Atlanta by not paying wages conforming with those of a similar type of work in the Atlanta area. Construction & General Laborers’ Union 438, AFL-CIO.’ The Court so held, notwithstanding the fact that the Court found that the legend carried upon said sign was true and that S. J. Curry & Company was not paying the prevailing wage in the area even though it had executed a contract with the City of Atlanta for said construction which contract contained the provision: 'Wages will conform with those being paid on similar types of work in the Atlanta area.’
Edwin Pearce and John S. Patton for petitioner.
E[. H. Perry, Jr. for respondents.
“(h) In granting said injunction, said court deprived Petitioner in Certiorari of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act, Title 29, Section 157 of the United States Code Annotated.
“(i) In granting said injunction said court assumes jurisdiction of a cause, the subject matter of which had been pre-empted by enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, Title 29, Section 157-158 (b) of the United States Code Annotated.”
Counsel are requested also to brief and argue the question of the Court’s jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia under 28 U. S. C. § 1257; see Montgomery Building & Construction Trades Council v. Ledbetter Erection Co., 344 U. S. 178.