Legal Opinion
Estenich v. Heenan
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 3, 1995No. Civ. A. 94-5688PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER & MEMORANDUM
KATZ, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 1995, upon consideration of defendants’ Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Or, In The Alternative, For A New Trial and plaintiffs response, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Estenich brought this action pursuant to Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (the “LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 412, alleging that defendants, the International Union of Oper ating Engineer, Local 542 (the “Local”), Robert Heenan, President of the Local, and Thomas Denise, Business Agent of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- National Labor Relations Board v. Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- Reed v. United Transportation UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Finnegan v. LeuSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n Local Union No. 6Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Keenan v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- DeCarlo v. SalamoneDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1997
- Estenich v. HeenanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
- Knight v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASS'NDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2010