Legal Opinion
Greyhound Corp. v. Division 1384 of Amalgamated Ass'n
Washington Supreme Court
Decided June 3, 1954No. 32712PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinley, J.
— This is an action fora declaratory judgment.
The Greyhound Corporation (Northwest Greyhound Lines Division), hereinafter referred to as Greyhound, and Division 1384 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America (an unincorporated association), hereinafter referred to as the Union, are parties to a collective bargaining agreement.
The preamble of the agreement states:
“The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a working understanding between the Company and its employees covered hereby, through their duly accredited representatives, affecting…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- In Re the Arbitration Between International Association of MacHinists, District No. 15, Local No. 402, & Cutler-Hammer, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1947
- Cabell v. City of Cottage GroveOregon Supreme Court · 1942
- New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, Inc. v. State Liquor AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Hess v. Country Club ParkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Local No. 149 of the American Federation of Technical Engineers (Afl) v. General Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
- Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- King County v. Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1977
- Grays Harbor County v. WilliamsonWashington Supreme Court · 1981
- Brass and Copper Workers Federal Labor Union No. 19322, Afl-Cio v. American Brass Company, Kenosha Division, a Subsidiary of Anaconda Copper CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.