FEDERAL · 18 U.S.C. · Chapter 233
Jury trial for contempt in labor dispute cases
18 U.S.C. § 3692
Title18 — Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter233 — CONTEMPTS
This text of 18 U.S.C. § 3692 (Jury trial for contempt in labor dispute cases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
18 U.S.C. § 3692.
Text
In all cases of contempt arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the contempt shall have been committed.
This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere directly with the administration of justice nor to the misbehavior, misconduct, or disobedience of any officer of the court in respect to the writs, orders or process of the court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Bloom v. Illinois
391 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court, 1968)
Jones v. United States
527 U.S. 373 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Green v. United States
356 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court, 1958)
Muniz v. Hoffman
422 U.S. 454 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of America
545 F.2d 1336 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Cna Financial Corporation v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor
830 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Circuit, 1987)
Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers
534 F.2d 735 (Seventh Circuit, 1976)
The North American Coal Corporation v. Local Union 2262, United Mine Workers of America
497 F.2d 459 (Sixth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Jose L. Martinez
686 F.2d 334 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
Richmond Black Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Richmond
548 F.2d 123 (Fourth Circuit, 1977)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. United States
411 F.2d 312 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Emery Air Freight Corp. v. Local Union 295
449 F.2d 586 (Second Circuit, 1971)
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration v. Bayou Shores SNF, LLC (In Re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC)
828 F.3d 1297 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Harry E. Robinson, United States of America v. Horace M. Disotell
449 F.2d 925 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
George Ramsey v. United Mine Workers of America, Tennessee Products & Chemical Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America
416 F.2d 655 (Sixth Circuit, 1969)
National Maritime Union v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
737 F.2d 1395 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)
Ray C. Ballantyne v. United States
237 F.2d 657 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Madden v. Grain Elevator, Flour and Feed Mill Workers, International Longshoremen Association, Local 418, Afl-Cio
334 F.2d 1014 (Seventh Circuit, 1964)
United States v. Jorge Torrez
869 F.3d 291 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 844.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on section 111 of Title 29, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Labor (Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, §11, 47 Stat. 72).
The phrase "or the District of Columbia arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute" was inserted and the reference to specific sections of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (sections 101–115 of Title 29, U.S.C., 1940 ed.) were eliminated.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Taft-Hartley Injunctions
Former section 111 of Title 29, Labor, upon which this section is based, as inapplicable to injunctions issued under the Taft-Hartley Act, see section 178 of Title 29.
Based on section 111 of Title 29, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Labor (Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, §11, 47 Stat. 72).
The phrase "or the District of Columbia arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute" was inserted and the reference to specific sections of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (sections 101–115 of Title 29, U.S.C., 1940 ed.) were eliminated.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Taft-Hartley Injunctions
Former section 111 of Title 29, Labor, upon which this section is based, as inapplicable to injunctions issued under the Taft-Hartley Act, see section 178 of Title 29.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
18 U.S.C. § 3692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/18/3692.