Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CNH America LLC v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided May 16, 2011No. 09-2001Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMartha Craig Daughtrey, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the VEBA trust fund agreement does not contain a covenant not to sue and, for that reason, that the UAW’s funding of the Yolton litigation did not constitute a breach of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties to this suit, of which the VEBA agreement was a part. However, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to reverse the district court’s sound ruling that CNH America’s state-law claims against the UAW are preempted by federal law.

*796That majority decision flows primarily from reliance on, and a misreading of, the Supreme…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971

11 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