Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters
United States Supreme Court
459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. (General Contractors) (defendant) was a membership corporation composed of various building and construction contractors. The California State Council of Carpenters (the union) (plaintiff) was one of several California unions composed of individuals working in the construction business. Collectively, the California unions represented over 50,000 people. The union and General Contractors negotiated and entered into collective-bargaining agreements covering the union’s workers for over 25 years. The union claimed that General Contractors acted to undermine the union’s collective-bargaining position by coercing third-party contractors not to enter into collective-bargaining agreements with the union and also by coercing contractors and subcontractors to hire nonunion workers. Seeking a remedy, the union brought a lawsuit against General Contractors, claiming that General Contractors’s coercive conduct amounted to an antitrust violation, entitling the union to treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act. General Contractors brought a motion to dismiss the union’s claim for treble damages, but the court of appeals allowed the claim to proceed. General Contractors appealed the decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.