Citation network
Chauffeurs Local 391 Vs. Terry
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 20, 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
-
U.S. 558 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Chauffeurs Local 391 v. TerrySearch
-
U.S. 558 (1990) Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local No. 391 v. TerrySearch
-
agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation in handling the grievance. DelCostello v. TeamstersSearch
-
jury trial, courts must examine both the nature of the issues involved and, more importantly, the remedy sought. Tull v. UnitedSearch
-
prove in order to prevail -- is comparable to a breach of contract claim, a legal issue. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. MitchellSearch
-
a) (1982 ed.), to represent all employees in a bargaining unit. Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
he can show that the union breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of his grievance. DelCostello v. TeamstersSearch
-
Parsons v. BedfordSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The right extends to Page 494 U. S. 565 causes of action created by Congress. Tull v. UnitedSearch
-
preserved the right to trial by jury where legal rights are at stake. As the Court noted in Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSearch
-
quoting Dimick v. SchiedtSearch
-
S. 417 -418 (citations omitted). The second inquiry is the more important in our analysis. Granfinanciera, S. A. v. NordbergSearch
-
support of its characterization of the duty of fair representation claim, the Union cites United Parcel Service, Inc. v. MitchellSearch
-
exclusive representative of the workers, must exercise its power to act on behalf of the employees in good faith, Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
whether and how to pursue an employee's grievance against Page 494 U. S. 568 an employer. See, e.g., Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
representation in its handling of the grievance, DelCostello, supra, at 462 U. S. 163 -164. See Bowen v. UnitedSearch
-
like a trust action than an attorney malpractice action, which was historically an action at law, see, e.g., Russell v. PalmerSearch
-
representation, unless a majority of the members of the bargaining unit share his dissatisfaction. See J. I. Case Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
the nature of our comparison of the action before us to 18th-century forms of action. As we observed in Ross v. BernhardSearch
-
Our determination under the first part of the Seventh Amendment analysis is only preliminary. Granfinanciera, S. A. v. NordbergSearch
-
Tull, 481 U.S. at 481 U. S. 424 . See also Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
Porter v. WarnerSearch
-
may be equitable. Tull, supra, at 481 U. S. 424 . See, e.g., Mitchell v. RobertSearch
-
et seq. (1982 ed.), as equitable. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
See Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
The Court has never held that a plaintiff seeking backpay under Title VII has a right to a jury trial. See Lorillard v. PonsSearch
-
Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
has noted that backpay sought from an employer under Title VII would generally be restitutionary in nature, see Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
Electrical Workers v. FoustSearch
-
U. S. 42 , 442 U. S. 49 , n. 12 (1979) (quoting Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
Compare Leach v. PanSearch
-
World Airways, 842 F.2d 285 (CA11 1988) (no right to a jury trial), with United Transportation Union, Local 74 v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Terry v. ChauffeursSearch
-
Quinn v. DiGiulianSearch
-
Roscello v. SouthwestSearch
-
to determine whether Congress provided for a jury trial in an action for breach of that duty is unavailing. Cf. Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
quoting United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
Tull v. UnitedSearch
-
claim against an employer and a duty of fair representation claim against a union. DelCostello v. TeamstersSearch
-
In United Parcel Service, Inc. v. MitchellSearch
-
inquiry of the first part, Ross v. BernhardSearch
-
because I believe the historical test can and should be simplified. The current test, first expounded in Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
U. S. 565 -566. Justice Stewart recognized the perplexities involved in this task in his dissent in Ross v. BernhardSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial