Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Jackson Transit Auth. Vs. Transit Union

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 07, 1982

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

58 entries 6 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. American Surety Co. Vs. Shulz US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1915
  2. Shoshone Mining Co. Vs. Rutter US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1900
  3. Bell Vs. Hood US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1946
  4. Universities Research Assn., Inc. Vs. Coutu US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1981
  5. WheeldIn Vs. Wheeler US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1963
  6. Maine Vs. Thiboutot US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1980
  7. Jackson Transit Auth. v. Transit
    Search
  8. Union - 457 U.S. 15 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Jackson Transit Auth. v. Transit
    Search
  9. Union, 457 U.S. 15 (1982) Jackson Transit Authority v. Local
    Search
  10. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. 650 F.2d 1379 (1981). Relying on Bell v. Hood
    Search
  11. of Appeals treated this as a private right of action case, see, e.g., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
    Search
  12. to be enforceable Page 457 U. S. 21 by private suit upon a breach. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  13. not whether the union can bring suit at all to enforce its contracts. See Local Div. 72, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan
    Search
  14. despite the fact that the relevant statutes lacked express provisions creating federal causes of action. In Machinists v. Central
    Search
  15. ed.). Similarly, in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz
    Search
  16. although the statute itself made no express provision for private suits. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  17. U.S. at 444 U. S. 119 . See also Mills v. Electric
    Search
  18. the particular provision at issue. See, e.g., Page 457 U. S. 23 Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  19. Cannon v. University
    Search
  20. Machinists v. Central
    Search
  21. III We begin with the language of the statute itself. See, e.g., Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu
    Search
  22. Page 457 U. S. 24 between local governmental entities and the unions representing their employees. See Cort v. Ash
    Search
  23. contracts between recipients of UMTA funds and transit unions. Division 587, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Municipality
    Search
  24. Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Greater
    Search
  25. Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. LaCrosse
    Search
  26. Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Kansas
    Search
  27. U.S. 1090 (1979). One Court of Appeals has reached the opposite conclusion. Local Div. 72, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan
    Search
  28. c) agreements do not override conflicting provisions of state law. Local Div. 589, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Massachusetts
    Search
  29. to hear the union's suit. Under Bell v. Hood
    Search
  30. stated a cause of action on which relief could be granted. Id. at 327 U. S. 682 . See also Wheeldin v. Wheeler
    Search
  31. c), we do not find Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  32. U. S. 11 (1979), or Machinists v. Central
    Search
  33. different from the congressional purpose underlying the statutes at issue in those cases. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz
    Search
  34. f) would make this a different case. See generally Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
    Search
  35. such as diversity or pendent jurisdiction, the union must sue in state court. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  36. Nor does 42 U.S.C.1983 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) permit the union to bring suit. As the Court held in Maine v. Thiboutot
    Search
  37. See Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National
    Search
  38. question on which implied rights of action cases properly are decided. See, e.g., Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National
    Search
  39. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff
    Search
  40. the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation . . . ,' American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court Jackson Transit Auth. v. Transit
    Search
  42. Jackson Transit Authority v. Local
    Search
  43. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
    Search
  44. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  45. Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan
    Search
  46. In Machinists v. Central
    Search
  47. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz
    Search
  48. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  49. Mills v. Electric
    Search
  50. See Cort v. Ash
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial