Welyczko v. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Welyczko v. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
123 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 29 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Atlas Air, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters (ca2, 2019-11-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Atlas Air, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters
2d Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
Id.; Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
Alaska · 2016 · confidence medium
Thus, the reasoning and analysis of DelCostello control in the instant case.”); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir. 1984) (applying the limitations period recognized in DelCostello to a hybrid action); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir. 1984) (applying the limitations period recognized in DelCostello to a hybrid action); Sisco v. Consol.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
Alaska · 2016 · confidence medium
Thus, the reasoning and analysis of DelfCos-tello control in the instant case."); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.1984) (applying the limitations period recognized in DelCostello to a hybrid action}; Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.1984) (applying the limitations period recognized in DelCostello to a hybrid action); Sisco v. Consol.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Margo v. Weiss
2d Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
As we have said, it is “the ‘general rule of long standing’ that ‘judicial precedents normally have retroactive as well as prospective effect.’” Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.1984) (quoting National Ass’n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 554 F.2d 1118, 1130 (D.C.Cir.1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Philip Margo v. Weiss
2d Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
As we have said, it is "the 'general rule of long standing' that 'judicial precedents normally have retroactive as well as prospective effect.'" Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 554 F.2d 1118, 1130 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Winders v. United Transportation Union
D. Wyo. · 1993 · confidence medium
Clerks, 801 F.2d 700 , 702 (4th Cir.1986); International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 790 F.2d 727, 733-34 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 931 , 107 S.Ct. 400 , 93 L.Ed.2d 354 (1986); Brock v. Republic Airline, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 526 (5th Cir.1985); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1194 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pac.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walsche v. First Investors Corp.
D. Conn. · 1992 · confidence medium
Co., 765 F.2d 364, 366 (2d Cir.1985) (generally court must apply law in effect at time it renders decision) (citing Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 , 89 S.Ct. 518 , 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969)); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp., 623 F.2d 786, 788 (2d Cir.1980), aff'd, 456 U.S. 461 , 102 S.Ct. 1883 , 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982) (“[t]he general rule of long .standing is that judicial precedents normally have retroactive as well as prospective effect”); Ames v. …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cipriano v. Board of Education of the City School District of North Tonawanda
W.D.N.Y. · 1991 · confidence medium
In Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984), the Second Circuit explained: Were we asked to decide if retrospective effect should be given to a new rule which our court had pronounced, the policy factors enumerated in Chevron Oil *1348 [Co. v. Huson] would indeed be determinative____ Similarly, had the Supreme Court given no indication whether Del-Costello [v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 , 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983)] should apply retroactively, a Chevron Oil analysis would a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barr v. McGraw-Hill
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · confidence medium
Co., 909 F.2d 716 (2d Cir.1990) ("when the Supreme Court, in announcing a new principle, itself applies it retroactively to the case at bar, generally ‘ "no sound reason exists for not doing so” ’ in a later appeal.”) (quoting Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.) (quoting Holzsager v. Valley Hospital, 646 F.2d 792, 797 (2d Cir.1981)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984)); Byrne v. Buffalo Creek Railroad Co., 765 F.2d 364 (2d Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farr Ex Rel. Estate of Farr v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · confidence medium
Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 608-09 , 107 S.Ct. 2022, 2025-26 , 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987); see also, Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 105-109 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355-56 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.1984) (where decision announcing new rule gives no indication whether new rule should be applied retroactively, Chevron Oil analysis is appropriate); In re Data Access Systems Securities Litigation, 843 F.2d 1537, 1552-53 (3d Cir.1988) (en banc) (Seitz, J. dissenting) (under Chevron Oil analysis, newly announced federal limitatio…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adames v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd.
E.D.N.Y · 1990 · confidence medium
Thomas, Inc., 831 F.2d 1184, 1189 (2d Cir.1987). *1558 However, where, as here, the Supreme Court itself “has given retrospective application to a newly adopted principle, 'no sound reason exists for not doing so here.’ ” Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984) (quoting Holzsager v. Valley Hospital, 646 F.2d 792, 797 (2d Cir.1981)); see also Gonzalez v. Home Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gonzalez v. The Home Insurance Company
2d Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.) (quoting Holzsager v. Valley Hospital, 646 F.2d 792, 797 (2d Cir.1981)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gonzalez v. Home Insurance
2d Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.) (quoting Holzsager v. Valley Hospital, 646 F.2d 792, 797 (2d Cir.1981)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fernandez v. Kogan
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
Although in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the Court balanced three factors to determine when nonretroactivity is appropriate, courts must apply new decisional law retroactively without regard to the Huson criteria when the Supreme Court itself has given retroactive application to a newly-adopted principle “to govern the very claim at issue in the case before it.” Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); See also Song v. Ives Laboratories, supra, 735…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Union, 743 F.2d 598, 599 (7th Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1194 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pac.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Union, 743 F.2d 598, 599 (7th Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1194 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pac.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Song v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly v. Burlington Northern Railroad
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Smallakoff v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, International, 825 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir.1987); Triplett v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Local Lodge No. 308, 801 F.2d 700 , 702 (4th Cir.1986); Brock v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 525-26 (5th Cir.1985); Dozier v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 760 F.2d 849, 851 (7th Cir.1985); Linder v. Berge, 739 F.2d 686, 689 (1st Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (198…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dan L. Kelly v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Smallakoff v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International, 825 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir.1987); Triplett v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Local Lodge No. 308, 801 F.2d 700 , 702 (4th Cir.1986); Brock v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 525-26 (5th Cir.1985); Dozier v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 760 F.2d 849, 851 (7th Cir.1985); Linder v. Berge, 739 F.2d 686, 689 (1st Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984)…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Price v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America
D. Conn. · 1990 · confidence medium
Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lamb v. Energy, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Indeed, the supreme court's unqualified application of its new interpretation of Sec. 35-1-42 to the Pate litigants themselves is some affirmative evidence of the court's intent to give its ruling general retroactive application. 1 See generally Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Bd., 159 Ariz. 256 , 766 P.2d 608, 609 (Ariz.App.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lamb v. W-Energy, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Indeed, the supreme court’s unqualified application of its new interpretation of § 35-1-42 to the Pate litigants themselves is some affirmative evidence of the court’s intent to give its ruling general retroactive application. 1 See generally Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Bd., 159 Ariz. 256 , 766 P.2d 608, 609 (Ariz.App.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sixel v. Transportation Communications
D. Minnesota · 1989 · confidence medium
See West, 481 U.S. at 38-39 , 107 S.Ct. at 1541 ; Triplett v. BRAC, 801 F.2d 700 , 702 (4th Cir.1986); United Independent Flight Officers v. United Air Lines, Inc., 756 F.2d 1262, 1270 (7th Cir.1985); Welyczko v. U.S. Air., Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240-41 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt, 729 F.2d at 581 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Legutko v. Local 816, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
2d Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See also Eatz v. DME Unit of Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 794 F.2d 29 , 33 (2d Cir.1986) (applying six month statute to unfair representation claims standing alone because of the “undeniable resemblance and substantial overlap between unfair labor practices and breaches of the duty of fair representation”); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.) (concluding that “same policies” that led Supreme Court to apply six month statute of limitations to hybrid action under section 301 “apply with equal force” to claims under t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael A.. Legutko v. Local 816, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters
2d Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See also Eatz v. DME Unit of Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 794 F.2d 29 , 33 (2d Cir.1986) (applying six month statute to unfair representation claims standing alone because of the "undeniable resemblance and substantial overlap between unfair labor practices and breaches of the duty of fair representation"); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.) (concluding that "same policies" that led Supreme Court to apply six month statute of limitations to hybrid action under section 301 "apply with equal force" to claims under the Railway L…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Contested Case of Surf & Sand Nursing Home v. Department of Human Services
Minn. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William D. Benoni v. Boston and Maine Corporation
1st Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Robinson v. Pan American World Airways, 777 F.2d 84 (2d Cir.1985); Linder v. Berge, 739 F.2d 686 (1st Cir.1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1193 (3d Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Loew v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
unknown court · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United Independent Flight Officers, Inc., v. United Airlines Inc., 756 F.2d 1262, 1270 (7th Cir.1985); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bell v. National Railroad Passenger
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · confidence medium
Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Dozier v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 760 F.2d 849, 851 (7th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1193 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 729 F.2d 578, 581 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jane C. Triplett v. The Brotherhood Of Railway, Airline And Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express And Station Employees, Local Lodge No. 308
4th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
It is further noted that no judge requested a poll of the Court on appellees' suggestion for rehearing en banc 2 Brock v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 525-26 (5th Cir.1985); Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 729 F.2d 578, 581 (8th Cir.1984); Ranieri v. United Tr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Triplett v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Local Lodge No. 308
4th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Brock v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 525-26 (5th Cir.1985); Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 729 F.2d 578, 581 (8th Cir.1984); Ranieri v. United Transportation Union, 743 F.2d 598, 600-601 (7th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daniel Gurish v. Gerald T. McFaul Sheriff the County Commissioners for Cuyahoga County, Ohio
6th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
This court, in determining that the Chevron analysis is inappropriate in this context, followed the lead of the Second Circuit in Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.1984) and has since applied the Smith rule again.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meadows v. Eaton Corp.
W.D. Va. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Barnett v. United Air Lines, 738 F.2d 358, 362 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 , (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Gray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutter Local 540, 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984); Lincoln v. District 9, International Association of Machinists, 723 F.2d 627, 630 (8th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Saunders v. HK PORTER CO., INC.
E.D. Va. · 1986 · confidence medium
Smith, 747 F.2d at 375 ; Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. Aloha Airlines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Dozier v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 760 F.2d 849, 851 (7th Cir.1985); Linder v. Berge, 739 F.2d 686, 689 (1st Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192-93 (3d Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hogan v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks
W.D. Va. · 1986 · confidence medium
Linder v. Berge, 739 F.2d 686, 689 (1st Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2nd Cir.1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192 (3rd Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pac.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. Aloha Airlines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Dozier v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 760 F.2d 849, 851 (7th Cir.1985); Linder v. Berge, 739 F.2d 686, 689 (1st Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 512 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192-93 (3d Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cox v. Brockway, Inc.(NY)
Okla. · 1985 · confidence medium
See e.g., Graves v. Smith’s Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d at 822 ; Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2nd Cir.1984); Edwards v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., 720 F.2d 857, 863 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Triplett v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, Local Lodge No. 308
4th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192 (3d Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 729 F.2d 578, 581 (8th Cir.1984); Ranieri v. United Transportation Union, 743 F.2d 598, 600-601 (7th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Triplett v. Brotherhood Of Railway, Airline And Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express And Station Employees, Local Lodge No. 308
4th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
We conclude that the reasoning in Zemonick is equally applicable to the facts of this case and that Triplett's action, which was filed within two years of her discharge, is, consequently, not barred by limitations. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below is reversed and this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 11 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1 Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (19…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Michael Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Company, a Corporation (6×)
4th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
However unwise or unfair we may believe the retroactive application of DelCostello would be to this case, we cannot refuse to recognize “the Supreme Court’s directive on this issue.” Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); accord Smith v. General Motors Corp., 747 F.2d 372, 375 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc) 5 ; Campbell v. McLean Trucking Co., 592 F.Supp. 1560, 1562 (E.D.N.Y.1984); see also Goins v. Teamsters Local 639, 598 F.Supp. 1151, 1154 (D.D.C.1984) (dictum).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alonzo Linder v. Ole M. Berge
1st Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
As the Second Circuit recently noted, “The same policies which led the Supreme Court to apply a federal statute of limitations to claims under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act apply with equal force to substantively identical claims under the Railway Labor Act.” 2 Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.1984); see also Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d at 1193 (DelCostello applies to unfair representation claims under the Railway Labor Act); Linder I, 567 F.Supp. at 916-17 (discussing the similarity between unfair representation claims under the National …
discussed Cited "see" Docket No. 04-5127
2d Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.1984) (describing hybrid § 301/fair representation claim as "substantively identical" to claim under the RLA). 9 The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the pleadings as to the individual defendants.
cited Cited "see" Sanozky v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Worker
2d Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.1984) (describing hybrid § 301/fair representation claim as “substantively identical” to claim under the RLA).
cited Cited "see" Walker v. Columbia University in the City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239 , 240-41 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984). 4 .
cited Cited "see" Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Association
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
cited Cited "see" Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" Rydzeski v. Burlington Northern
D. Minnesota · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 240 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1192-94 (3rd Cir.1984); Ranieri v. United Transportation Union, 743 F.2d 598, 600-601 (7th Cir.1984); Hunt v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 729 F.2d 578, 581 (8th Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 363-64 (10th Cir.) (opinion on rehearing), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Brock v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 525-26 (5th Cir.1985); Triplett v. Brotherhood…
discussed Cited "see" Driscoll v. Boston Edison Co.
Mass. App. Ct. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 (1984); Perez v. Dana Corp., 718 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1983); Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 796 F.2d 1546 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 671 (1986); Gray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters Local 540, 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1984); Smith v. General Motors Corp., 747 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1984); Landahl v. PPG Indus., Inc., 746 F.2d 1312 (7th Cir. 1984); Lincoln v. District 9 of the Intl.
discussed Cited "see" Bigelow v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
D. Haw. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036 , 105 S.Ct. 512 , 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail CorP., 732 F.2d 1188 (3d Cir.1984); Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087 , 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roman Welyczko
v.
U.S. Air, Inc. And Thomas Pomeroy as Chairman of the International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Local No. 75, District 141
999.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 25, 1984.
733 F.2d 239
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

733 F.2d 239

116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2120, 101 Lab.Cas. P 11,021

Roman WELYCZKO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. AIR, INC. and Thomas Pomeroy as Chairman of the
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, Local No. 75,
District 141, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 999, Docket 83-7976.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued March 30, 1984.
Decided April 25, 1984.

Michael T. McGarry, Albany, N.Y. (Lombardi, Reinhard, Walsh & Harrison, Albany, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Melvin H. Osterman, Jr., Albany, N.Y. (Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, Albany, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee U.S. Air, Inc.

Peter P. Paravati, Utica, N.Y. (Constance J. Angelini, Utica, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee Thomas Pomeroy.

Before KAUFMAN, KEARSE and PIERCE, Circuit Judges.

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:

1

Roman Welyczko appeals from the dismissal of his hybrid claim against his employer for wrongful discharge, and against his union for breach of its duty of fair representation. The district judge based his action upon the Supreme Court's decision in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), which established a six-month statute of limitations for claims under Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). We hold that the DelCostello decision has both retroactive and prospective application, and therefore affirm the dismissal of Welyczko's complaint.

2

* We shall briefly review the facts. The parties have agreed that Welyczko was an employee of U.S. Air, Inc. ("U.S. Air") and that the terms and conditions of his employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement between U.S. Air and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ("IAM"). Welyczko was granted a 90-day medical leave of absence on May 5, 1975. On or about July 31 of that year, he wrote to his employer requesting an extension of leave. He reiterated that request by telegram on August 3. Approximately three days later, Welyczko received a letter from a U.S. Air executive, notifying him that his request for extended leave would be considered only upon receipt of corroboration from a physician that additional leave was necessary. Because his doctor was then on vacation, Welyczko decided to forward to U.S. Air a second copy of the physician's note, dated May 5. This document had accompanied his original application for leave.

3

U.S. Air refused to accept the copy as adequate substantiation. Accordingly, when Welyczko did not return to work, the company terminated his employment on August 26, 1975. This discharge was made retroactive to August 5, the day his authorized leave expired. Welyczko responded by requesting an officer of the IAM to arrange a special hearing on his discharge, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. The IAM contradicts this by replying that Welyczko was advised that he himself would have to make a written request for such a hearing. In any event, the hearing was never held, and the discharge action became final.

4

The instant suit was commenced in New York State Supreme Court on March 5, 1981, and was subsequently removed to federal court. After DelCostello was decided, appellees moved for summary judgment asserting that the statute of limitations adopted in that case should apply retroactively to Welyczko's cause of action, which accrued in 1975. On November 1, 1983, in a ruling from the bench, Chief Judge Munson granted the motion. Welyczko appeals.

II

5

In DelCostello, the Supreme Court decided that a uniform federal statute of limitations should apply to claims under Sec. 301 of the LMRA. In the absence of an expressly applicable federal limitations period, the Court acknowledged, the "most closely analogous statute of limitations under state law" would normally govern. 103 S.Ct. at 2287. The Court concluded, however, that the "federal policies at stake and the practicalities of litigation make [federal law] a significantly more appropriate vehicle for interstitial lawmaking" in this instance. Id. at 2294. It therefore held that the six-month time limit on unfair labor practice complaints under Sec. 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act applied to Sec. 301 claims as well.

6

Welyczko's claim must be construed as arising under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq., which governs air carriers in lieu of the LMRA. See 29 U.S.C. Secs. 142, 152; 45 U.S.C. Sec. 181. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, however, that this distinction is "without import." Barina v. Gulf Trading and Transportation Co., 726 F.2d 560, 563 n. 6 (9th Cir.1984). The same policies which led the Supreme Court to apply a federal statute of limitations to claims under Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act apply with equal force to substantively identical claims under the Railway Labor Act.

7

We have already applied the DelCostello rule retroactively, although the issue was not specifically discussed. Assad v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 703 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.), vacated, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 54, 78 L.Ed.2d 73 (1983), on remand, 725 F.2d 837 (1984). Our action there was consistent with the "general rule of long standing" that "judicial precedents normally have retroactive as well as prospective effect." National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 554 F.2d 1118, 1130 (D.C.Cir.1976), quoted in Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 623 F.2d 786, 788 (2d Cir.1980), aff'd, 456 U.S. 461, 101 S.Ct. 3107, 69 L.Ed.2d 970 (1982). All but one of the circuits considering the retroactivity of DelCostello have reached the same result. Perez v. Dana Corp., Parish Frame Division, 718 F.2d 581 (3rd Cir.1983); Murray v. Branch Motor Express Co., 723 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir.1983); Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 720 F.2d 857 (5th Cir.1983); Curtis v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 299, 716 F.2d 360 (6th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (dictum); Storck v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 600, 712 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Lincoln v. District 9 of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 723 F.2d 627 (8th Cir.1983); Hand v. Int'l Chemical Workers Union, 712 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); contra, Edwards v. Teamsters Local No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1599, 79 L.Ed.2d ---- (1984).

III

8

Appellant urges us to carve out an exception to the retroactivity principle so that his claim may proceed, arguing that under the three-factor test articulated by the Supreme Court in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the DelCostello holding should be given only prospective application. Most of the authorities just cited, however, applied the Chevron test and found that DelCostello should be applied retroactively. See Perez v. Dana Corp., Parish Frame Division, supra, 718 F.2d at 584-85; Murray v. Branch Motor Express Co., supra (adopting reasoning of Perez ); Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., supra, 720 F.2d at 860-62; Lincoln v. District 9 of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, supra, 723 F.2d at 629-30. Moreover, in our view this case does not present circumstances in which the use of the Chevron test would be appropriate.

9

Were we asked to decide if retrospective effect should be given to a new rule which our court had pronounced, the policy factors enumerated in Chevron Oil would indeed be determinative. See United States v. Fitzgerald, 545 F.2d 578, 582 (7th Cir.1976). Similarly, had the Supreme Court given no indication whether DelCostello should apply retroactively, a Chevron Oil analysis would also be in order. But these factors are not present here. The Supreme Court not only adopted a new statute of limitations in DelCostello; it applied that time bar retroactively to govern the very claim at issue in the case before it. We have noted that "the Supreme Court is well aware of how to avoid the effects of applying one of its rulings retroactively to the case at bar." Cates v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 561 F.2d 1064, 1073 (2d Cir.1977). Thus, when that Court itself has given retrospective application to a newly-adopted principle, "no sound reason exists for not doing so here." Holzsager v. Valley Hospital, 646 F.2d 792, 797 (2d Cir.1981). A court of appeals must defer to the Supreme Court's directive on this issue, explicit or implicit. See United States v. Fitzgerald, supra, at 582. Certainly, its intended application is clear in this case.

10

We therefore decline appellant's invitation to exclude his suit from the DelCostello holding. Rather, we adopt for this circuit the rule that in employment termination cases, a six-month statute of limitations applies both retroactively and prospectively to wrongful discharge/failure to represent claims. Because Welyczko's complaint was filed more than five years after his termination, it is clearly time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Welyczko's complaint.