Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.
| Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. | |
|---|---|
![]()  | |
| Decided June 18, 1962 | |
| Full case name | Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. | 
| Citations | 370 U.S. 238 (more) | 
| Holding | |
| When a union is liable for damages for violation of the no-strike clause, its officers and members are not liable for these damages. | |
| Court membership | |
  | |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | White, joined by unanimous | 
| Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Taft-Hartley Act | |
Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238 (1962), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when a union is liable for damages for violation of the no-strike clause, its officers and members are not liable for these damages.[1][2]
Significance
In this case, the court recognized Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act as a Congressional abrogation of the Danbury Hatters' Case.
References
External links
- Text of Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238 (1962) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia
 
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.
