Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Callis, Papa, Jackstadt & Halloran, P.C. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 2001No. 88306Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE KILBRIDE,

specially concurring:

I concur with the majority’s decision that the parties to the collective-bargaining agreement explicitly waived the presence of attorneys at disciplinary hearings. Nevertheless, I submit this concurrence to underscore three points. First, I believe that our decision should be based upon our longstanding respect for collective-bargaining agreements. Second, we should note that this decision is limited to the facts in this particular case and that a different factual scenario may well present a sufficient claim to invoke the public policy exception to our…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, District 17Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Department of Central Management ServicesIllinois Supreme Court · 1996
  4. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. StateIllinois Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Leoris v. DicksAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986

1 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