Legal Opinion
Pace v. Honolulu Disposal Service, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 25, 2000No. 99-15796PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
We must resolve a conflict between the clear language of a series of collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) and decide whether evidence of an oral agreement is admissible to supplement the terms of unambiguous CBAs. The heart of the case is a contractual rather than representational dispute, and the district court had jurisdiction to decide it. Because we conclude that the parol evidence rule bars admission of an oral agreement that not only contradicts the terms of an unambiguous CBA but would essentially eviscerate its plain language, we reverse.
*1153BACKGROUND and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Margolis v. RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Jim McNeff, Inc. v. ToddSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Local No. 3-193 International Woodworkers of America v. Ketchikan Pulp CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Brown-Graves Company v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and Howard McDougall TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Travelers Insurance v. Detroit Edison Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001
- Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Craig A. Moffatt v. Midwest Express Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- (SS) Ohman v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
- Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Craig A. Moffatt v. Midwest Express Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Air Line Pilots v. Midwest ExpressCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.