green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
28.4 score
“n injunction to block an arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement is fully subject to the strictures of the norris-laguardia act.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Continental Airlines, Inc., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc. Continental Airlines Holdings, Inc. v. The Eastern Pilots Merger Committee, Inc. The Eastern Arbitration Group, Inc. The Individual Members of the Eastern Pilots Merger Committee, Inc. John O'b. Clarke, Jr. The Individuals of the Eastern Arbitration Group, Inc. (District of Delaware Civil No. 04-Cv-00031). Eastern Pilots Merger Committee, Inc. Peter Crawford, Individually and as the Representative of All Similarly Situated Eastern Pilots Michael Weglarz v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. Continental Airlines, Inc. Air Line Pilots Association (District of Delaware Civil No. 04-Cv-00071) (Amended in Accordance With the Clerk's Order Dated 03/02/05). Eastern Pilots Merger Committee, Inc. Peter Crawford the Individual Members of the Eastern Pilots Merger Committee, Inc. John O'b. Clarke, Jr., in No. 05-1053. Michael Weglarz, in No. 05-1096
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
n injunction to block an arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement is fully subject to the strictures of the norris-laguardia act.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
TK Global, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Heimerl v. Tech Electric of Minnesota, Inc.
Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1551-52 (11th Cir.1988)). 13.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Turner Industries Group, LLC v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 450
(2×)
Instead what is required is conduct manifesting an intention to abide by the terms of an agreement, [citations omitted]”) (finding enforceable labor agreement based on employer’s payment of union wages, contribution to union trust funds, observance of union holidays, and allowance of steward’s control over certain work practices); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988) (contract law formation requirements are to be given “liberal interpretation” because of “important federal policy favoring existence of collective bargaining agreemen…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ v. Diversified Services Group, Inc.
But “a party cannot show lack of mutual assent merely by pointing to areas of disagreement over previously adopted language.” Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parks v. Dittmar (In Re Dittmar)
(2×)
Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988). . 11 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(1). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Aleman v. Chugach Support Services, Incorporated
See, e.g., United Steelworkers of Am. v. Bell Foundry Co., 626 F.2d 139, 141 (9th Cir.1980); see also, e.g., Ekas v. Carling Nat'l Breweries, Inc., 602 F.2d 664 , 666-67 (4th Cir. 1979) (modification of collective bargaining agreement was valid when union and employer assented, despite objections of some employees); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1553-54 (11th Cir.1988) (collective bargaining agreement was binding when union and employer manifested assent). 34 Nor can we find a basis for Aleman and Basilis' novel duty of translation in the settled requi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aleman v. Chugach Support Services, Inc.
See, e.g., United Steelworkers of Am. v. Bell Foundry Co., 626 F.2d 139, 141 (9th Cir.1980); see also, e.g., Ekas v. Carling Nat’l Breweries, Inc., 602 F.2d 664 , 666-67 (4th Cir.1979) (modification of collective bargaining agreement was valid when union and employer assented, despite objections of some employees); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1553-54 (11th Cir.1988) (collective bargaining agreement was binding when union and employer manifested assent).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Continental
It does not 10 See USAir, 960 F.2d at 349 (retaining jurisdiction in RLA context to determine “whether a collective bargaining agreement imposes a duty on the parties to arbitrate a particular grievance.”); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l., 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir. 1988) (deciding CBA was enforceable before deciding whether RLA applied). -14- extend to a dispute “between existing employees of an existing carrier and the former employees of a former carrier.” District Court Opinion, 2004 WL 3119835 , at *5.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Eastern Pilots Merger Committee, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See USAir, 960 F.2d at 349 (retaining jurisdiction in RLA context to determine "whether a collective bargaining agreement imposes a duty on the parties to arbitrate a particular grievance.”); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l., 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988) (deciding CBA was enforceable before deciding whether RLA applied). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Local 107 Office & Professional Employees International Union v. Offshore Logistics, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Assoc., Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988) (citing Wanior Constructors, Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 926, 383 F.2d 700, 708 (5th Cir.1967)). 6 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. M & B Railroad
Such disputes are termed ‘minor disputes.’ See Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Intern., 861 F.2d 1546, 1554 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sharkey v. Ultramar Energy Ltd.
See Alan Shop, Inc. v. Benjamin Moore, 909 F.2d 59 (2d Cir.1990); Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots, 861 F.2d 1546, 1552 (11th Cir.1988); Adler & Shaykin v. Wachner 721 F.Supp. 472, 478 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Greystone Partnerships v. Koninklijke, 815 F.Supp. 745, 756-57 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Braunstein, “Remedy, Reason and the Statute of Frauds,” 1989 Utah L.Rev. #2 at 383.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luden's Inc. v. Local Union No. 6
See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. at 550 , 84 S.Ct. at 914-15 ("[A]lthough the duty to arbitrate ... must be founded on a contract, the impressive policy considerations favoring arbitration are not wholly overborne by the fact that [the employer] did not sign the contract being construed."); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988); see also Smith v. Evening News Ass'n, 371 U.S. 195, 199 , 83 S.Ct. 267, 270 , 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962) ("[Section] 301 is not to be given a narrow reading."). 36 Second, to effectuate the federal lab…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luden's Inc. v. Local Union No. 6 of the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers' International Union
See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. at 550 , 84 S.Ct. at 914-15 (“[Although the duty to arbitrate ... must be founded on a contract, the impressive policy considerations favoring arbitration are not wholly overborne by the fact that [the employer] did not sign the contract being construed.”); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988); see also Smith v. Evening News Ass’n, 371 U.S. 195, 199 , 83 S.Ct. 267, 270 , 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962) (“[Section] 301 is not to be given a narrow reading.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luden's, Inc. v. Local Union No. 6, Bakery, Confect'ryTobacco Wrkrs Internat'l
See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. at 550 , 84 S. Ct. at 914-15 ("[A]lthough the duty to arbitrate . . . must be founded on a contract, the impressive policy considerations favoring arbitration are not wholly overborne by the fact that [the employer] did not sign the contract being construed."); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir. 1988); see also Smith 0 The general contract treatises maintain that if an employment contract for a fixed term expires and the parties continue their relationship, "another contract by implication …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Durable, Inc. v. Twin County Grocers Corp.
Otherwise, as-pointed out by Judge Leval in TIAA v. Tribune Co., 670 F.Supp. at 497 , the result would be that of “trapping parties in surprise contractual obligations that they never intended.” .For a major commitment of this type to be entered into without a writing containing all critical terms and signed by the party to be charged is “implausible” under Matsushita in the same way as it would be counterintuitive to assume that labor-management negotiators would “sign a contract with a disputed wage term.” Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Ci…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Town of Clarkstown v. North River Insurance
See generally Alan Skop, Inc. v. Benjamin Moore, Inc., 909 F.2d 59 (2d Cir.1990); Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1552 (11th Cir.1988) (purported oral collective bargaining agreement provisions); Goldstick v. ICM Realty, 788 F.2d 456, 466 (7th Cir.1986); Braunstein, Remedy, Reason and the Statute of Frauds, 1989 Utah L.Rev. 383. .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Licata & Co. Inc. v. Goldberg
Compare Alan Shop, Inc. v. Benjamin Moore, Inc., 909 F.2d 59 (2d Cir.1990); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1552 (11th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brach
See generally Goldstick v. ICM Realty, 788 F.2d 456, 466 (7th Cir.1986); Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1552 (11th Cir.1988); Practice Commentary, NY Gen.Oblig.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maxwell MacMillan Co., Inc. v. DISTRICT 65, UAW
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 548 , 84 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964); Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Paperworkers International Union v. International Paper Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 548 , 84 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898, 904 (1964); Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
No. 89-7581
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 548 , 84 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898, 904 (1964); Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Air Line Pilots Ass'n International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)
Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 94 , 99 S.Ct. 399, 402 , 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978) (RLA embodies strong policy favoring arbitration of disputes concerning interpretation of collective bargaining agreement); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Inti, 861 F.2d 1546, 1555 (11th Cir.1988) (labor arbitrators have “a special competence not shared by a federal court that will enable the [arbitrator] wisely to construe language that may appear too vague to even the most intrepid of generalist judges”). 18 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Kirk Line, Indian River Transport, Inc., Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Kirk Line, Eller & Company, Inc., Indian River Transport, Inc., Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Kirk Line, R.B. Kirkconnell & Bro. Ltd., Indian River Transport, Inc., Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Kirk Line, R.B. Kirkconnell & Bro., Ltd., Jamaica Merchant Marine Atlantic Line Ltd., Indian River Transport, Inc., Ss Morant Bay, Its Engines, Boilers, Etc., Eller & Company, Inc., Indian River Transport, Inc., Cross-Appellees
Int'l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1549 (11th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Kirk Line
Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1549 (11th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Schueler v. Roman Asphalt Corp.
See Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots, 861 F.2d 1546, 1552 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Nelstad Material Corp.
See generally Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 861 F.2d 1546, 1552 (11th Cir.1988); Goldstick v. ICM Realty, 788 F.2d 456, 466 (7th Cir.1986); Roadway Express v. Jossy, 853 F.2d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1988); Braunstein, Remedy, Reason and the Statute of Frauds, 1989 Utah L.Rev. 383. 4 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rachford v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International
See, e.g., Eastern Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l, 861 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir.1988) (agreement to dispense with “mutual assent” over a given term is itself a product of “mutual assent”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leonard M. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Doyle Alva WESTER, Eugenia W. Pelt and Billy Wester Dickson, Defendants, Pencie W. Wester, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Doyle Alva WESTER, Eugenia W. Pelt and Billy Wester Dickson, Defendants, Pencie W. Wester, Defendant-Appellant
87-3716.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 27, 1988.
J. Paul Griffith, Griffith & Griffith, Frank A. Baker, Marianna, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Ben Kirbo, Bainbridge, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Tjoflat, Vance, Cox.
Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (1)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion August 29, 1988, 11 Cir., 853 F.2d 828).
Before TJOFLAT, VANCE and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:On petition for rehearing appellee brings to our attention that the award by the district court that was the subject of this appeal included only $84,285.55 attributable to the proceeds of 284.43 acres of undistributed estate lands ordered to be conveyed to the plaintiff. The remaining $13,788.72 was awarded to the plaintiff in connection with a matter not directly related to the subject of this appeal and is not affected by our decision in this case.
Accordingly our opinion is modified to reverse only so much of the district court award as is equal to $84,285.55. The petition for rehearing is otherwise DENIED.