Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United Steelworkers Vs. Rawson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 14, 1990

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

72 entries 6 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Allis-chalmers Corp. Vs. Lueck US Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1985
    Relied / Followed
  2. Vaca Vs. Sipes US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1967
  3. Delcostello Vs. Teamsters US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1983
  4. Ford Motor Co. Vs. Huffman US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1953
  5. Avco Corp. Vs. Machinists US Supreme Court · Apr 08, 1968
  6. Farmer Vs. Carpenters US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1977
  7. U.S. 362 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court United Steelworkers v. Rawson
    Search
  8. U.S. 362 (1990) United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Rawson
    Search
  9. that respondents' negligence claim was not preempted. Distinguishing this Court's decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck
    Search
  10. the State Supreme Court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Electrical Workers v. Hechler
    Search
  11. id. at 163a. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed. Dunbar v. United
    Search
  12. J., specially concurring). Page 495 U. S. 366 We denied the Union's petition for certiorari. Steelworkers v. Dunbar
    Search
  13. that respondents had stated a valid claim under Idaho law that was not preempted by federal labor law. Rawson v. United
    Search
  14. of America, 111 Idaho 630, 726 P.2d 742 (1986). Distinguishing this Court's decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck
    Search
  15. at 745. The Union again petitioned for certiorari. While that petition was pending, we decided Electrical Workers v. Hechler
    Search
  16. of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and remanded this case for further consideration in light of Hechler. Steelworkers v. Rawson
    Search
  17. Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  18. have concurrent jurisdiction over controversies involving collective bargaining agreements, Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney
    Search
  19. U. S. 502 (1962), state courts must apply federal law in deciding those claims, Teamsters v. Lucas
    Search
  20. Avco Corp. v. Machinists
    Search
  21. extends beyond state law contract actions. In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck
    Search
  22. S. 211 . We extended this rule of preemption to a tort suit by an employee against her union in Electrical Workers v. Hechler
    Search
  23. today. The Union's duty of fair representation arises from the National Labor Relations Act itself. See Breininger v. Sheet
    Search
  24. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell
    Search
  25. at one time it may have appeared most unlikely that unions would be called upon to assume such duties, see Humphrey v. Moore
    Search
  26. Electrical Workers v. Hechler
    Search
  27. United Mine Workers Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson
    Search
  28. H.K. Porter Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  29. U. S. 99 , 397 U. S. 106 -108 (1970). Our decision in Electrical Workers v. Hechler
    Search
  30. an intent to create obligations enforceable against the union by the individual employees. Cf. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
    Search
  31. interpretation, respondents have no claim, for with exceptions under federal labor law not relevant here, see Lewis v. Benedict
    Search
  32. collective bargaining agreement relied on by respondents are not promises by the Union to the employer. Cf. Teamsters v. Lucas
    Search
  33. arbitrary and capricious fashion in failing to exercise its duties under the collective bargaining agreement. Cf. Vaca v. Sipes
    Search
  34. argument on our decisions in Lingle v. Norge
    Search
  35. and Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck
    Search
  36. Rawson v. United
    Search
  37. As in Lingle v. Norge
    Search
  38. them. Because we have no basis for disputing the construction of state law by a state supreme court, see Clemons v. Mississippi
    Search
  39. Glanzer v. Shepard
    Search
  40. relies, embodies this principle and long has guided the interpretation of Idaho tort law. See, e.g., Steiner Corp. v. American
    Search
  41. S.H. Kress & Co. v. Godman
    Search
  42. Page 495 U. S. 381 Fagundes v. State
    Search
  43. Carroll v. United
    Search
  44. Steele v. Louisville
    Search
  45. a) of the NLRA in Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman
    Search
  46. U. S. 96 , 375 U. S. 104 (1963). Our decision in Farmer v. Carpenters
    Search
  47. id. at 430 U. S. 299 (quoting Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin
    Search
  48. regulatory scheme. State courts long have held unions liable for personal injuries under state law. See, e.g., DiLuzio v. United
    Search
  49. Brawner v. Sanders
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court United Steelworkers v. Rawson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial