Legal Opinion
Donald Moynahan v. Pari-Mutuel Employees Guild of California, Local 280
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 6, 1963No. 18354_1PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MERRILL, Circuit Judge.
Appellee Union, having a closed-shop agreement with turf clubs in California, has, according to appellant, arbitrarily denied him membership in the Union and thereby has prevented him from securing employment as a pari-mutuel clerk. Appellant has brought this action, seeking damages and an injunction against the Union’s continuing to refuse him membership.
Upon a motion by appellees to dismiss the action, the district court received a stipulation of facts establishing that ap pellant had never been admitted to union membership. The district court, treating the motion as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Steele v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Carter v. Carter Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Strachman v. PalmerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- In Re Ben CarterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- James Smith v. Local No. 25, Sheet Metal Workers International AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Murphy v. KodzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Wham-O-Mfg. Co., a Corporation v. Paradise Manufacturing Co., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.