28 U.S.C. § 482
Definitions
As used in this chapter, the term “judicial officer” means a United States district court judge or a United States magistrate judge.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1938–2018 · leading case: Hugler v. Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union
Hugler v. Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union (2017)
“For the Court to nullify the results of a union election based upon violations- of the LMRDA, the Secretary must show: (1) that the union’s conduct constitutes a statutory violation, and .”
Chao v. Local 54, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union (2001)
“28 U.S.C. § 482 (c)(2). Upon a determination by the court that a violation of the LMRDA has been established, the Secretary enjoys the benefit of a presumption that the outcome of the challenged election may have been affected.”
United States v. Delroy Anthony McLean (2018)
“§ 1043 (b)(6) ; 28 U.S.C. § 482 . An explanation of the similarities and differences between the special inquiry officers of old and the immigration judges of today can be found in United States v.”
Pennsylvania Social Services Union, Local 668 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (1976)
“Since it has no duty to investigate charges, we hold that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion by failing to hold a formal investigation. Appellant’s other authorities are equally unpersuasive.”
Fisher v. Washington Teachers' Union (2004)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 482 (a). It is then within the Secretary’s jurisdiction to investigate the complaint and file a civil action in federal court against the labor organization, if the Secretary finds probable cause to believe that a violation has in fact occurred.”
Wood v. Herman (2000)
“28 U.S.C. § 482 (b) (emphasis added). As explained by the Court in Chaney , the statutory language in Dunlop “supplied sufficient standards to rebut the presumption of unreviewability.”
Hill v. Chao (2002)
“DOL, however, is constrained by 28 U.S.C. § 482 , which does not permit it to entertain a complaint from a complainant who has not properly exhausted his union remedies.”
In re Guaranty Trust Co. (1938)
“, 28 U.S.C.A. § 482 note. But Marshals were appointed and commissioned for a term of four vears, Rev.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.