Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Assimilation (1)
- Congress (1)
- District courts (1)
- Equality (1)
- Federal agencies (1)
-
- Indian territories (1)
- Indian tribes (1)
- Injunctions (1)
- Just and proper standard (1)
- Legal status (1)
- Legislative history (1)
- Legislative intent (1)
- National Labor Relations Act (1)
- National Labor Relations Boards (1)
- Native Americans (1)
- Navajos (1)
- Preliminary injunctions (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Remedial purposes (1)
- Self-determination (1)
- Sovereignty (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Tribal status (1)
- Unfair labor practices (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Williams v. Lee (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Deconstructing 'Just And Proper': Arguments In Favor Of Adopting The 'Remedial Purpose' Approach To Section 10(J) Labor Injunctions, William K. Briggs
Deconstructing 'Just And Proper': Arguments In Favor Of Adopting The 'Remedial Purpose' Approach To Section 10(J) Labor Injunctions, William K. Briggs
Michigan Law Review
Congress, through the 1947 addition of section 10(j) to the National Labor Relations Act, authorized district courts to grant preliminary injunctive relief for unfair labor practices if they deem such relief "just and proper." To this day a circuit split persists over the correct interpretation of this "just and proper" standard. Some circuits interpret "just and proper" to require application of the traditional equitable principles approach that normally governs preliminary injunctions. Other circuits interpret "just and proper" to require an analysis of whether injunctive relief is necessary to preserve the National Labor Relations Board's remedial power This Note examines the …
Williams V. Lee And The Debate Over Indian Equality, Bethany R. Berger
Williams V. Lee And The Debate Over Indian Equality, Bethany R. Berger
Michigan Law Review
Williams v. Lee (1959) created a bridge between century-old affirmations of the immunity of Indian territories from state jurisdiction and the tribal self-determination policy of the twentieth century. It has been called the first case in the modern era of federal Indian law. Although no one has written a history of the case, it is generally assumed to be the product of a timeless and unquestioning struggle of Indian peoples for sovereignty. This Article, based on interviews with the still-living participants in the case and on examination of the congressional records, Navajo council minutes, and Supreme Court transcripts, records, and …