Legal Opinion
Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided April 20, 2015No. Civil Action No. 2014-0378PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge
In this labor dispute, Plaintiffs Janice Murray and Tim Queen challenge the lawfulness of an election-eligibility ruling made by Defendant Amalgamated Transit Union, claiming that it violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 as well as its own constitution. On December 19, 2014, the Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, holding that material facts remain in dispute. Plaintiffs have now moved for reconsideration. Although the Court declines the invitation to alter its prior…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Singh v. George Washington UniversityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Cobell v. NortonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Monzillo v. BillerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Judicial Watch v. Department of ArmyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- Williams v. SavageDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hirsch v. Jupiter Golf Club LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2017
- Murray v. Amalgamated Transit UnionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
- Murray v. Amalgamated Transit UnionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
- Soto v. United States Department of StateDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016