Legal Opinion

Dieringer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided January 15, 1968No. 63-C-91PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

REYNOLDS, Judge:

I. Issues

Before this court are the two issues remaining in this case that could not be resolved by agreement. They are:

1. Whether the plaintiff, a railroad employee, should receive interest on the back pay he has been awarded (and, if so, how that interest should be computed) ; and

2. What is the “reasonable attorney’s fee” that under 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (p), must be “taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit” if, as here, the “petitioner [plaintiff] shall finally prevail” in a suit to enforce an order of the Railroad Adjustment Board.

II. Facts

The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

The Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, Miami Cabinet Division v. National Labor Relations Board, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw-Afl-Cio, and Its Local Union No. 689 v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
Raabe v. Florida East Coast Railway CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 1966
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America v. Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1967

3Cited by5 opinions

Rosa M. Figueroa De Arroyo v. Sindicato De Trabajadores Packinghouse, Afl-Cio, and Puerto Rico Telephone CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
Burlington Northern Inc., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. The American Railway Supervisors Association, Defendant-Counterclaimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
Local Union 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Artkraft, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1974
Pompeo v. Erie-Lackawanna Railroad CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1972
Laday v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1969