Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nicholas Yanity, Raymond Gawrys and George Hartung v. Clinton Benware and International Association of MacHinists

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 11, 1967No. 30540_1Published

1DissentLumbard, Chief Judge

I dissent. In my opinion, both of plaintiffs’ claims under the Bill of Rights, section 101, of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 73 Stat. 522 (1959), 29 U.S.C. § 411, are legally sufficient.

*202I.

I believe that plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants refused, in violation of the union constitution, to call a special meeting requested by a petition signed by the required number of members of the local for the purpose of considering an attempt to vacate the arbitration award as to plaintiffs states a claim upon which relief can be granted under section 101 (a) (2) of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Smith v. Evening News Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948

9 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