Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
66 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Doyle v. Kamenkowitz (ca2, 1997-06-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Doyle v. Kamenkowitz (4×)
2d Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Morrissey v. Segal, 526 F.2d 121, 128-29 (2d Cir.1975); Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2, 3 (2d Cir.1962); Kerr v. Shanks, 466 F.2d 1271, 1277 (9th Cir.1972); Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107 v. Cohen, 182 F.Supp. 608, 622 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 284 F.2d 162 , 164 (3d Cir.1960).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doyle v. Kamenkowitz (2×)
2d Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See id. at 128-29; see also, e.g., Kerr, 466 F.2d at 1277 ("[T]he policy of permitting a union to reimburse its officers who have successfully defended themselves against charges of violating § 501 provides adequate protection of union officers from baseless litigation."); Holdeman, 311 F.2d at 3 (same); Highway Truckers I, 284 F.2d at 164. 7 27 The district court relied on passages in Morrissey that in isolation could suggest that unions do owe reimbursement of fees to officers who prevail in suits under § 501; for example: 28 The defendant trustees, however, are entitled to be reimbursed f…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Niagara-Genesee & Vicinity Carpenters Local 280 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
W.D.N.Y. · 1994 · confidence medium
Tucker v. Shaw, 378 F.2d at 306 -307 (citing Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2, 3 (2d Cir.1962)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cassidy v. Horan
2d Cir. · 1968 · confidence medium
This claim, however, would seem to be one to be made, if at all, to the local union, through its governing board and members; see Highway Truck Drivers, etc. v. Cohen, 284 F.2d 162 , 164 (3d Cir. 1960); Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2, 3 (2d Cir. 1962); cf. Milone v. English, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 207 , 306 F.2d 814, 817 (1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. Shaw
2d Cir. · 1967 · confidence medium
The union moved to intervene and defend the officers; plaintiff thereupon obtained an order in the district court which denied intervention and enjoined defendants from using counsel employed by the union under an annual retainer. 2 In affirming, this court said (311 F.2d at 3): 5 We specifically note approval of the court's suggestion that on motions for injunctions of this sort, the district court should, after a preliminary hearing if necessary, determine whether the plaintiff has made a reasonable showing that he is likely to succeed, and whether the conduct of the defendants is in conflic…
cited Cited "see" Loretangeli v. Critelli
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (standard applicable "on motions for injunctions of this sort").
cited Cited "see" Loretangeli v. Critelli
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (standard applicable “on motions for injunctions of this sort”).
cited Cited "see" Urichuck v. Clark
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holderman v. Sheldon, 204 F.Supp. 890, 893 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 311 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1962).
cited Cited "see" Urichuck v. Clark
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holderman v. Sheldon, 204 F.Supp. 890, 893 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 311 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1962).
cited Cited "see" Dinko ex rel. National Maritime Union v. Wall
2d Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2, 3 (1962) (per curiam); Tucker v. Shaw, supra, 378 F.2d at 306-07 .
cited Cited "see" Bernard W. McNamara v. Robert Johnston
7th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2 , 3 (2d Cir. 1962), aff’g, 204 F.Supp. 890, 895 (S.D.N.Y.).
cited Cited "see" Koonce v. Gaier
S.D.N.Y. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holdeman v. Sheldon. 311 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1962); Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers, etc. v. Cohen, 284 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 833 , 81 S.Ct. 747 , 5 L.Ed.2d 744 (1961).
discussed Cited "see" Horner v. Ferron
1st Cir. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holdeman v. Sheldon, S.D.N.Y., 204 F. Supp. 890, 896 , aff'd, 2 Cir., 311 F.2d 2 . 27 The fourth reason advanced by appellees in the district court why the application should be denied was that the complaint does not conform to the requirements of Rule 23(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to secondary actions by shareholders.
cited Cited "see" Horner v. Ferron
9th Cir. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holdeman v. Sheldon, S.D.N.Y., 204 F. Supp. 890, 896 , aff’d, 2 Cir., 311 F.2d 2 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." BURROUGHS OBO OPERATING ENG'RS LOC. U. v. Marr
N.D. Cal. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.1962); Tucker v. Shaw, 378 F.2d 304 (2d Cir.1967).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. Nelson
8th Cir. · 1963 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare also Holdeman v. Sheldon, S.D.N.Y., 204 F.Supp. 890 (1962), aff’d, 311 F.2d 2 (2 Cir. 1962).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. Nelson
8th Cir. · 1963 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare also Holdeman v. Sheldon, S.D.N.Y., 204 F.Supp. 890 (1962), aff'd, 311 F.2d 2 (2 Cir. 1962). 28 In summary, we hold that § 501 imposes fiduciary responsibility in its broadest application and is not confined in its scope to union officials only in their handling of money and property affairs. 29 Appellants' second contention — that even if Title V imposes a fiduciary responsibility in the broadest sense, the action complained of would not constitute a violation of such responsibility — has given rise to certain misapprehensions that are in need of clarification.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur L. Holdeman on Behalf of Local 88 of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, Afl-Cio
v.
Lloyd W. Sheldon and Frank T. Scavo, and Local 88 of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, Afl-Cio, Appelicant to Intervene-Appellant
27706.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 6, 1962.
311 F.2d 2
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

311 F.2d 2

Arthur L. HOLDEMAN on Behalf of LOCAL 88 OF the
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND
PILOTS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lloyd W. SHELDON and Frank T. Scavo, Defendants-Appellants,
and Local 88 of the International Organization of
Masters, Mates and Pilots of America,
AFL-CIO, Appelicant to
Intervene-Appellant.

No. 120, Docket 27706.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 26, 1962.
Decided Dec. 6, 1962.

Ernest Allen Cohen, New York City (Jaffe & Wachtell, New York City), for defendants-appellants.

Robert J. Mozer, New York City (Harold, Luca, Persky & Mozer), New York City, for applicant to intervene-appellant.

Burton H. Hall, New York City, for Plaintiff-appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SWAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Arthur Holdeman, President of Local 88 of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America (the Union), brought suit on behalf of the Union against two Union officials, Lloyd Sheldon and Frank T. Scavo, for alleged violations of 29 U.S.C.A. 501(a) and (b) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, arising out of the issuance of checks expending certain funds of the Union. The court below in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion granted plaintiff's motion to enjoin the defendants from using counsel employed by the Union under an annual retainer to defend them, and also denied the Union's motion to intervene and file a common answer with the defendants. All of the questions raised on this appeal were fully and adequately answered in the opinion of the court below and we affirm for the reasons there stated.

2

We specifically note approval of the court's suggestion that on motions for injunctions of this sort, the district court should, after a preliminary hearing if necessary, determine whether the plaintiff has made a reasonable showing that he is likely to succeed, and whether the conduct of the defendants is in conflict with the interests of the Union. This, in combination with a policy of permitting a union to reimburse a defendant if he is successful in his defense, or perhaps even where his actions were based on a reasonable judgment as to appropriate procedures and do not evidence bad faith, should provide sufficient financial protection of union officials against nuisance suits.

3

Affirmed.