Legal Opinion
Driscoll v. Boston Edison Co.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided February 9, 1988No. 87-46PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
1. No argument is made that the verdicts for Edison and Godfrey were improperly directed. As to those counts the appeal is waived. Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See Anthony’s Pier Four, Inc. v. Crandall Dry DockEngineers, Inc., 396 Mass. 818,821 n.4 (1986).
2. The claims for wrongful termination and breach of the duty of fair representation constitute a hybrid wrongful termination/fair representation *955action under § 301 of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1982). Such an action may be brought in a State court, Charles Dowd Box Co. v.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Charles Dowd Box Co. v. CourtneySupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. Crandall Dry Dock Engineers, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Shafir v. SteeleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Trustees of the Iron Workers District Council of New England, Pension, Health, & Welfare, Annuity, Vacation, Education Funds v. Oxford Sutton Development, LLCMassachusetts Superior Court · 2008
- Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard CollegeMassachusetts Superior Court · 1998