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.
4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 40 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Anchor | green | “the employee may, if he chooses, sue one defendant and not the other; but the case he must prove is the same whether he sues one, the other, or both.” | 31 |
| 2 | White v. White Rose Food | green | “begins to run when the employee knew or should have known of the breach of the duty of fair representation.” | 4 |
| 3 | White v. White Rose Food | green | “knew or should have known of the breach of the duty of fair representation.” | 3 |
| 4 | White v. White Rose Food | green | “the limitations period on this 'hybrid 301/dfr' action is six months, which begins to run when the employee knew or should have known of the breach of the duty of fair representation.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.