Coronado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers (Coronado II)

268 U.S. 295 (1925)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Coronado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers (Coronado II)

United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 295 (1925)

  • Written by Patricia Peters, JD

Facts

Nine coal-mining corporations (mining corporations) (plaintiffs) operated collectively in Sebastian County, Arkansas, using union labor from the United Mine Workers of America (international union), District No. 21 (District 21) (defendants). The union’s contract with the mining corporations was set to expire on July 1, 1914. In March, the manager of the mines notified the union’s president that the mines would no longer use union labor. On April 6, 1914, the day the mines were set to reopen using nonunion labor, District 21 laborers injured several hired guards at the mines. After an injunction was issued against the District 21 miners, work at the mines continued using nonunion labor. On July 17, 1914, union members and their supporters, armed with weapons provided by District 21, attacked nonunion laborers at the mines and destroyed the mining corporations’ property and equipment. The mining corporations sued the international union and District 21 under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In Coronado I, on review from a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granting damages to the mining corporations, the Supreme Court held there was insufficient evidence to show that District 21 had intentionally restrained interstate commerce in violation of the act. The Court therefore reversed the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case to the district court. At a new district-court trial, the mining corporations presented new evidence regarding the July 17 attack, including notes from a District 21 convention and testimony from a former District 21 officer, showing that District 21 leadership often discussed tactics to keep union coal competitive with nonunion coal from other states. The district court issued a directed verdict and judgment in favor of District 21, which the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The mining corporations appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Taft, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership