Citation network
Breininger Vs. SMW Int'l
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1989
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
-
Breininger v. SMWSearch
-
Int'l - 493 U.S. 67 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Breininger v. SMWSearch
-
Int'l, 493 U.S. 67 (1989) Breininger v. SheetSearch
-
unfair labor practice, over which state and federal courts lack jurisdiction under San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
did not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction over petitioner's fair representation claim, since Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
of the collective bargaining agreement, and is therefore subject to the duty of fair representation. Humphrey v. MooreSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that would apply to the type of procedure encountered in Boilermakers v. HardemanSearch
-
Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
or 8 of the NLRA. See San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
U. S. 245 (1959). Nevertheless, the District Court was not deprived of jurisdiction. In Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
b) as part of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). As Justice WHITE described Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
last Term in Karahalios v. FederalSearch
-
not enough to deprive a federal court of jurisdiction over the fair representation claim. See Communications Workers v. BeckSearch
-
Plumbers v. BordenSearch
-
labor law, but rather are illegal only if they in fact result in discrimination prohibited by the NLRA. See Teamsters v. NLRBSearch
-
Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
contract, and other substantive areas of law that have developed quite independently of federal labor law. Cf. Lingle v. NorgeSearch
-
Electrical Workers v. NechlerSearch
-
Teamsters v. LucasSearch
-
United Postal Service, Inc. v. MitchellSearch
-
agreement, a context in which no breach-of-contract action against an employer is possible. See Ford Motor Co. v. PageSearch
-
Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
to allege that his employer breached the agreement in order to prevail. See, e.g., Communications Workers v. BeckSearch
-
a)(3), see Wallace Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
the NLRA. See, e.g., Tunstall v. LocomotiveSearch
-
creates federal jurisdiction over fair representation claims, because we held in Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
See Chavez v. UnitedSearch
-
Anderson v. UnitedSearch
-
Buchholtz v. SwiftSearch
-
Mumford v. GloverSearch
-
Retana v. ApartmentSearch
-
De Arroyo v. SindicatoSearch
-
Nedd v. UnitedSearch
-
Bautista v. PanSearch
-
employer discrimination in hiring only when it is intended to discriminate on a union-related basis. See, e.g., NLRB v. BrownSearch
-
NLRB v. Allis-ChalmersSearch
-
U. S. 335 , 375 U. S. 342 (1964) (emphasis added). See Communications Workers v. BeckSearch
-
Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
Electrical Workers v. HechlerSearch
-
id. at 865 (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
Teamsters v. NLRBSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial