Hunt v. Crumboch
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 821 (1945)
- Written by Patricia Peters, JD
Facts
Hunt (plaintiff) was a freight-trucking partnership that had a contract with the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (A&P), which operated out of Philadelphia. In 1937, Local 107 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the union) (defendant) called a strike of A&P’s employees in Philadelphia. Hunt refused to unionize and attempted to continue its business. Violence ensued, and one member of the union was killed. A member of the Hunt partnership was tried for—and acquitted of—the murder. The union eventually entered into a closed-shop agreement with A&P, and A&P notified its contractor haulers that their employees must join the union. However, the union declined to negotiate with Hunt and refused to admit any of its employees into the union. Thus, A&P canceled its contract with Hunt under the closed-shop agreement. Hunt later lost a different contract for the same reason and was unable to obtain any further contracts in Philadelphia. Hunt sought an injunction and treble damages in district court. Finding that Hunt had failed to prove its causes of action under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act—which prohibit certain acts to restrain interstate commerce—the district court entered a judgment in favor of the union. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
Dissent (Jackson, J.)
Dissent (Roberts, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.
