In the Interest of I.P., a Child v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that major disputes are covered by the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s anti-injunction provisions
• holding that major disputes are covered by the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s anti-injunction provisions
• \the Chicago River case [ ] held that a strike could be enjoined to prevent a plain violation of a basic command of the Railway Labor Act\
• where railroad prevailed on state agency to change rules and thereby reduced number of stations, railroad could not point to those state rules as a reason it need not bargain with the union over station closings
• “But it is impossible to classify as a minor dispute this dispute relating to a major change, affecting jobs, in an existing collective bargaining agreement, rather than to mere infractions or interpretations of the provisions of that agreement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).