United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that labor union could be sued for antitrust violations and describing the “affirmative legal recognition of their existence and usefulness and provisions for their protection”
• excepting United Mine Workers’ Union from common-law nonsuable capacity of unincorporated associations because of enormous financial power of union and because of Congress' purpose in passing Anti-Trust Law
• holding it a question of “actual agency” as to whether international union could be held responsible for actions of local union, ultimately concluding that international union was not liable where it did not interfere in strike or otherwise assume liability by ratification
• “Rule 17(b)(3)(A) amplifies the Coronado decision to include all partnerships and other unincorporated associations and applies both to their capacity to sue and their capacity to be sued”
• mere fact of affiliation does not establish an agency relationship
• mere fact of affiliation does not establish an agency relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).