Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Redford Township v. Redford Township Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1986Moran and Brown were ordered reinstated after thirty-day disciplinary suspensions. [7] Redford Twp, supra at 72-74. [8] Bay City, supra at 731-732. [9] Redford Twp, supra at 72. [10] The United States Supreme Court, in Smith v Evening News Ass'n, 371 US 195 ; 83 S Ct 267 ; 9 L Ed 2d 246 (1962), said that "the authority of the [National Labor Relations] Board to deal with an unfair labor practice which also violates a collective bargaining contract is not displaced by § 301, but it is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under § 301." Id. at 197. 1986Moran and Brown were ordered reinstated after thirty-day disciplinary suspensions. [7] Redford Twp, supra at 72-74. [8] Bay City, supra at 731-732. [9] Redford Twp, supra at 72. [10] The United States Supreme Court, in Smith v Evening News Ass'n, 371 US 195 ; 83 S Ct 267 ; 9 L Ed 2d 246 (1962), said that "the authority of the [National Labor Relations] Board to deal with an unfair labor practice which also violates a collective bargaining contract is not displaced by § 301, but it is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under § 301." Id. at 197. | 1 | 1 |
Bay City School District v. Bay City Education Ass'n Inc.green1 sentence1986Moran and Brown were ordered reinstated after thirty-day disciplinary suspensions. [7] Redford Twp, supra at 72-74. [8] Bay City, supra at 731-732. [9] Redford Twp, supra at 72. [10] The United States Supreme Court, in Smith v Evening News Ass'n, 371 US 195 ; 83 S Ct 267 ; 9 L Ed 2d 246 (1962), said that "the authority of the [National Labor Relations] Board to deal with an unfair labor practice which also violates a collective bargaining contract is not displaced by § 301, but it is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under § 301." Id. at 197. | 1 | 1 |
Breish v. Ring Screw Worksgreen1 sentence1976This being so, we reject the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff is precluded from bringing his action merely because the union did not breach any duty to the plaintiff.” 59 Mich App 464, 466, 468 . 4 Because plaintiff’s suit is for breach of the collective bargaining contract, the suit arises under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and is controlled by Federal law, even though it has been brought in state court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.
green
2 sentences1994The import of Lincoln Mills was demonstrated when the Court first addressed the preemptive effect of §301 in Local 174, Teamsters v Lucas Flour Co, 369 US 95 ; 82 S Ct 571 ; 7 L Ed 2d 593 (1962). 1994The import of Lincoln Mills was demonstrated when the Court first addressed the preemptive effect of §301 in Local 174, Teamsters v Lucas Flour Co, 369 US 95 ; 82 S Ct 571 ; 7 L Ed 2d 593 (1962). | 2 | 1976–1994 |
National Labor Relations Board v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America
green
2 sentences2000As set forth in Clayton , the question is whether, and in what circumstances, an employee alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation in processing his grievance, and that his employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement, must also attempt to exhaust the internal union appeals procedures established by his union’s constitution before he may maintain his suit under § 301. [Id. at 682.] The Court described the test as follows: As we stated in NLRB v Marine Workers, [ 391 US 418, 426 , and n 8; 88 S Ct 1717 ; 20 L Ed 2d 706 (1968)], courts have discretion to decide w 2000As set forth in Clayton , the question is whether, and in what circumstances, an employee alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation in processing his grievance, and that his employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement, must also attempt to exhaust the internal union appeals procedures established by his union’s constitution before he may maintain his suit under § 301. [Id. at 682.] The Court described the test as follows: As we stated in NLRB v Marine Workers, [ 391 US 418, 426 , and n 8; 88 S Ct 1717 ; 20 L Ed 2d 706 (1968)], courts have discretion to decide w | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
green
2 sentences1988There, the Court stated: We do hold that when resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim, see Avco Corp v Aero Lodge 735, 390 US 557 [ 88 S Ct 1235 ; 20 L Ed 2d 126 ] (1968), or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law. [Lueck, 471 US 220 . 1988There, the Court stated: We do hold that when resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim, see Avco Corp v Aero Lodge 735, 390 US 557 [ 88 S Ct 1235 ; 20 L Ed 2d 126 ] (1968), or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law. [Lueck, 471 US 220 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Smith v. Evening News Assn.
green
2 sentences1986The United States Supreme Court, in Smith v Evening News Ass’n, 371 US 195 ; 83 S Ct 267 ; 9 L Ed 2d 246 (1962), said that "the authority of the [National Labor Relations] Board to deal with an unfair labor practice which also violates a collective bargaining contract is not displaced by § 301, but it is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under § 301.” Id. at 197. 1986The United States Supreme Court, in Smith v Evening News Ass’n, 371 US 195 ; 83 S Ct 267 ; 9 L Ed 2d 246 (1962), said that "the authority of the [National Labor Relations] Board to deal with an unfair labor practice which also violates a collective bargaining contract is not displaced by § 301, but it is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under § 301.” Id. at 197. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Humphrey v. Moore
green
2 sentences1976Humphrey v Moore, 375 US 335, 343-344 ; 84 S Ct 363 ; 11 L Ed 2d 370 (1964); Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v Lucas Flour Co, 369 US 95, 102-104 ; 82 S Ct 571 ; 7 L Ed 2d 593 (1962). 1976Humphrey v Moore, 375 US 335, 343-344 ; 84 S Ct 363 ; 11 L Ed 2d 370 (1964); Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v Lucas Flour Co, 369 US 95, 102-104 ; 82 S Ct 571 ; 7 L Ed 2d 593 (1962). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.