Citation network
Lingle Vs. Norge Div., Magic Chef, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 06, 1988
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Lingle v. NorgeSearch
-
Div., Magic Chef, Inc. - 486 U.S. 399 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Lingle v. NorgeSearch
-
Div., Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) Lingle v. NorgeSearch
-
law principles -- necessarily uniform throughout the Nation -- must be employed to resolve the dispute. Teamsters v. LucasSearch
-
Kelsay v. MotorolaSearch
-
Midgett v. Sackett-ChicagoSearch
-
pending the completion of the arbitration. Record, Doc. No. 7. Relying on our decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSearch
-
In Textile Workers v. LincolnSearch
-
In Teamsters v. LucasSearch
-
Page 486 U. S. 405 In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 471 U. S. 216 (quoting Hilker v. WesternSearch
-
Illinois courts have recognized the tort of retaliatory discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim, Kelsay v. MotorolaSearch
-
and Page 486 U. S. 407 have held that it is applicable to employees covered by union contracts, Midgett v. Sackett-ChicagoSearch
-
Horton v. MillerSearch
-
Gonzalez v. PrestressSearch
-
claim, an employer must show that it had a nonretaliatory reason for the discharge, cf. Loyola University of Chicago v. IllinoisSearch
-
Id. at 481 U. S. 220 . See Paperworkers v. MiscoSearch
-
Steelworkers v. EnterpriseSearch
-
because of the availability of arbitration, barred from bringing claims under federal statutes. See, e.g., McDonald v. WestSearch
-
Barrentine v. Arkansas-BestSearch
-
Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. BuellSearch
-
providing a one-time severance benefit to employees in the event of a plant closing. In Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
Peabody Galion v. DollarSearch
-
Herring v. PrinceSearch
-
Baldracchi v. PrattSearch
-
Johnson v. HussmannSearch
-
claims. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. CourtneySearch
-
U. S. 502 (1962). State as well as federal courts must apply federal law in deciding these claims. See Teamsters v. LucasSearch
-
It was apparently the theory of the Washington court that, although Textile Workers Union v. LincolnSearch
-
Electrical Workers v. HechlerSearch
-
preempted the state law claim. See also Republic Steel Corp. v. MaddoxSearch
-
in determining whether a state law claim brought in state court was properly removed to federal court. In Avco Corp. v. MachinistsSearch
-
Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. ConstructionSearch
-
Conversely, in Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSearch
-
Such independence was not present either in Lucas Flour, Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSearch
-
U. S. 202 (1985), or Electrical Workers v. HechlerSearch
-
to remember that other federal labor law principles may preempt state law. Thus, in San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
after Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
against retaliatory discharge, nor may they alter a worker's rights under the state worker's compensation scheme. Byrd v. AetnaSearch
-
evidence, see Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
Thus, what we said in Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSearch
-
and also claims 'substantially dependent on analysis of a collective bargaining agreement.' Electrical Workers v. HechlerSearch
-
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial