BUCK'S STOVE & C. CO. v. AM. FED. OF LABOR
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Mosler, Inc. v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 1862 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
- Duell v. Duell (D.C. Cir. 1949)
- Vardon Golf Co. v. Supreme Golf Sales, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1990)
- George Clipper v. Takoma Park (4th Cir. 1989)
- Clipper v. Takoma Park (4th Cir. 1989)
- Trans International Airlines, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (9th Cir. 1980)
- General Electric Co. v. Seltzer (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1958)
- United States v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America (D.C. Cir. 1951)
- Pacific Gamble Robinson Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. (D. Minn. 1950)
- Waialua Agr. Co., Limited v. Maneja Maneja v. Waialua Agr. Co., Limited (9th Cir. 1949)
- Macklin v. Kaiser Co. (District Court, D. Oregon 1946)
- Price v. Wilson (D.C. 1943)
- Selected Products Corp. v. Humphreys (7th Cir. 1936)
- Western Electric Co. v. Cinema Supplies, Inc. (8th Cir. 1935)
- Farmers' State Bank of Texahoma v. Thompson (5th Cir. 1919)
- Lisman v. Knickerbocker Trust Co. (6th Cir. 1914)
- Brown v. Detroit Trust Co. (6th Cir. 1912)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
BUCK'S STOVE & RANGE COMPANY
v.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
v.
BUCK'S STOVE & RANGE COMPANY.
Supreme Court of United States.
Mr. Daniel Davenport and Mr. J.J. Darlington for The Buck's Stove & Range Company.
Mr. Jackson H. Ralston, Mr. F.L. Siddons and Mr. William E. Richardson for The American Federation of Labor et al.
Per Curiam:
When these cases were reached for hearing and after the argument had materially progressed, it developed from statements made by counsel for both parties that the cases had become purely moot because of the settlement between the parties of every material controversy which the record presented. On the disclosure of this situation further argument was dispensed with; and for the reason which led to that action, that is, as we have said, that the controversies between the parties had become in all respects moot, the appeals must be dismissed. Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U.S. 487, 492, and cases cited. Appeals dismissed, without costs to either party. `
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.