# Scott v. Moore

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 1, 1982 · 680 F.2d 979

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915316

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul E. SCOTT v. Bill MOORE, Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 870, International Union of Operating Engineers, etc., AFL-CIO, Local 450
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 1, 1982
- **Citations:** 680 F.2d 979; 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3097
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Andersoniii
- **Judges:** Anderson, Brown, Clark, Fay, Garwood, Garza, Gee, Godbold, Hatchett, Henderson, Hill, III, Johnson, Kravitch, Ley, Politz, Randall, Reav, Roney, Rubin, Tate, Tjoflat, Vance, Williams
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed by United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915316

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that First Amendment interests of nonunion employees to work in nonunion environment were invaded by pro-union conspiracy

## Opinion text

R. LANIER ANDERSON, III, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I join Parts I and III of the dissent authored by Judges Rubin and Williams. Having thus concluded that the district court erred in granting the injunction (Part I) and that there is not sufficient evidence to support the judgment when tested under the proper standard of proof (Part III), I find it unnecessary to reach the very difficult issues discussed by Judges Rubin and Williams in Part II. While I probably agree that the evidence in this case did not establish the necessary “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus,” I have reservations concerning the broader implications of Part II of the dissent of Judges Rubin and Williams.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915316. Public record. Not legal advice.