Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Eugene Joseph White, Cross-Appellee v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. And Local 580, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Cross-Appellants
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided May 31, 1990No. 88-1725, 88-1960Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWellford, Circuit Judge
We affirmed the district court’s grant of a directed verdict to the defendant Teamster Local Union No. 580 (the union) and to the employer, Anchor Motor Freight (Anchor), on November 14, 1989, in a decision reported at 889 F.2d 718 (6th Cir.1989). I believe that we decided the case at that time properly in accord with precedent in this circuit and not contrary to our understanding of Supreme Court decisions on “hybrid” actions brought under § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The facts in this appeal by the truck driver employee, White, are set out in that opinion. We relied then upon…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. LockridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n Local Union No. 6Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Donn L. Beriault v. Local 40, Super Cargoes & Checkers of the International Longshoremen's& Warehousemen's UnionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.