green
Positive treatment
1.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Birch v. the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
See Pennsylvania Nurses Assn. v. Pennsylvania State Education Assn., 90 F.3d 797, 807 (3d Cir.1996) (noting that had the employee framed his complaint in terms of the em *388 ployer ■ violating an implied duty in the CBA, the claim would have been preempted by the LMRA), cert, denied,' 519 U.S. 1110 , 117 S.Ct. 947 , 136 L.Ed.2d 835 (1997); Person v. Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc.; 993 F.Supp. 958, 961 (EJD.Va.1998) (“The Supreme Court has held that a Florida tort law claim alleging that plaintiffs union had breached its duty of care to provide a safe workplace is preempted by § 301.” (ci…
cited
Cited "see"
Carrabba v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc.
See In re New Valley Corp., 89 F.3d 143, 148 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1110 , 117 S.Ct. 947 , 136 L.Ed.2d 835 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barbieri v. United Technologies Corp.
In assessing whether to apply either exception a court must balance “the State’s interest in controlling or remedying the effects of the conduct . . . against both the interference with the National Labor Relations Board’s ability to adjudicate controversies committed to it by the Act . . . and the risk that the State will sanction conduct that the Act protects.” (Citations omitted.) Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, supra, 463 U.S. 498 -99; see also Pennsylvania Nurses Assn. v. Pennsylvania State Education Assn., 90 F.3d 797, 803 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1110 , 117 S. Ct. 947 , 136…
NEW VALLEY CORPORATION
v.
NEW VALLEY CORPORATION SENIOR EXECUTIVE BENEFIT PLAN PARTICIPANTS
v.
NEW VALLEY CORPORATION SENIOR EXECUTIVE BENEFIT PLAN PARTICIPANTS
No. 96-804.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 18, 1997.
117 S. Ct. 947
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.