Legal Opinion · Dissent

Local Division 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided January 29, 1982No. 81-7613Published

1DissentVance, Circuit Judge

The panel majority has decided that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a suit to enforce the provisions of a labor protective agreement signed by appellant as a condition to the receipt of federal funds under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transit Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1609(c). The majority reaches this decision despite the existence of persuasive authority from the five other circuits that have considered this question and reached the opposite conclusion. See Division 587, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 663 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1981); Local…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Central Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Local Division 519, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Lacrosse Municipal Transit Utility and City of Lacrosse, WisconsinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
  4. Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Kansas City Area Transportation AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978
  5. Division 587, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Defendant-PetitionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981

2 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