Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rutland Railway Corporation v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 18, 1962No. 259, Docket 26760Published

1DissentMarshall, Circuit Judge

With deference to my brothers, I deem the issues raised by the present case to be of such importance that a statement of my dissenting views is necessary. Because the “Section 6” and contract termination notices served by Rutland were also issued by most of the Class I railroads in the country, the factual pattern before us is of national importance. Much of what the majority says seems to me not only well put but also quite correct. I do not disagree with their treatment of the venue problem, with most of their general statements as to when a strike is legal or illegal under the Railway…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  4. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  5. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1960

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API