Rutland Railway Corporation v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
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
- Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- 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.