Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Local 201 Reinforcing Rodmen

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided May 18, 1995No. Civ. A. 95-706 (CRR)PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

Before the Court in the above-captioned ease is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ pleadings, the entire record herein, and the law applicable thereto, the Court shall GRANT the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant is a local union which represents construction workers known as “rod-men” who install steel rods for reinforcing concrete and other building materials. In April 1993, Plaintiff became an apprentice in Defendant’s Joint Apprenticeship and Training…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Joseph F. Cada v. Baxter Healthcare CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  5. Jane Doe v. United States Department of JusticeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Na'Im v. RiceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
  2. McAlister v. PotterDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
  3. Ruiz v. VilsackDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
  4. Hammel v. Marsh USA Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2015
  5. Guillen v. National GrangeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1997

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API