Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Air Line Pilots Vs. Miller

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 23, 1998

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

62 entries 4 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Machinists Vs. Street US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  2. Railway Clerks Vs. Allen US Supreme Court · May 13, 1963
  3. Mccarthy Vs. Madigan US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1991
  4. First Options of Chicago, Inc. Vs. Kaplan US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1995
  5. U.S. 866 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Air Line Pilots Association V. Miller
    Search
  6. requirement set forth in Teachers v. Hudson
    Search
  7. the duties of an exclusive employee representative dealing with the employer on labor-management issues. Ellis v. Railway
    Search
  8. and rejects ALPA's request to extend the discretionary exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine, see McCarthy v. Madigan
    Search
  9. be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he or she has not agreed so to submit. E. g., Steelworkers v. Warrior
    Search
  10. Act (NLRA) or Railway Labor Act (RLA) (when private employers subject to their provisions are involved). In Teachers v. Hudson
    Search
  11. free riders-employees in the bargaining unit on whose behalf 1 Compare Lancaster v. Air
    Search
  12. Line Pilots Assn. Int'l, 76 F.3d 1509 , 1522 (CAlO 1996) (exhaustion of arbitral remedy required), with Knight v. Kenai
    Search
  13. Peninsula Borough School Dist., 131 F.3d 807 , 816 (CA9 1997) (exhaustion not required), and Bromley v. Michigan
    Search
  14. Ellis v. Railway
    Search
  15. see also Railway Clerks v. Allen
    Search
  16. see also Communications Workers v. Beck
    Search
  17. under NLRA). A similar rule-based explicitly on the Constitution-applies to public-sector employment. In Abood v. Detroit
    Search
  18. Id., at 234. In Lehnert v. Ferris
    Search
  19. discretionary exhaustion-ofremedies doctrine to agency-fee arbitration. See Brief for Petitioner 19 (citing McCarthy v. Madigan
    Search
  20. here Congress has not clearly required exhaus- 3 See Lehnert v. Ferris
    Search
  21. statutory agency-fee cases as reflecting First Amendment principles articulated in Abood). But cf. Price v. International
    Search
  22. Steelworkers v. Warrior
    Search
  23. see also First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
    Search
  24. reply brief, endorses NEA's argument. See Reply Brief 16-17. The contention, however, is inconsistent with Teachers v. Hudson
    Search
  25. agency-fee errors, dissenting employees may avail themselves of that process even if not required to do so. Cf. Patsy v. Board
    Search
  26. to defer discovery or other proceedings pending the prompt conclusion of arbitration. See, e. g., Landis v. North
    Search
  27. of Columbia Circuit is Affirmed. JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, dissenting. In Teachers v. Hudson
    Search
  28. s concern that nonmember employees share the cost of the collective bargaining from which they benefit. See Abood v. Detroit
    Search
  29. Ma chinists v. Street
    Search
  30. see also Lehnert v. Ferris
    Search
  31. those whose objections rest less upon ideology and more upon a desire to minimize the fee they must pay. See Gilpin v. AFSCME
    Search
  32. Weaver v. University
    Search
  33. Kidwell v. Transportation
    Search
  34. Cf. Skidmore v. Swift
    Search
  35. of the United States Reports. 888 MARCH 3, 1998 Miscellaneous Order No. A-657. FRANCIS, WARDEN V. FRANKLIN
    Search
  36. STEVENS, and by him referred to the Court, denied. MARCH 4, 1998 Dismissal Under Rule 46 No. 97-7427. ALTSCHUL V. TEXAS
    Search
  37. Tex. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's 46. MARCH 6, 1998 Certiorari Denied No. 97-8069 (A-644). ARNOLD V. MOORE
    Search
  38. denied. Certiorari denied. MARCH 9, 1998 Certiorari Granted-Vacated and Remanded No. 97-669. CITY OF BELLEVILLE V. DOE
    Search
  39. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oncale v. Sundowner
    Search
  40. F.3d 563 . Miscellaneous Orders. (See also No. 97-7300, ante, p. 206.) No. M-46. BENOIT V. MEDICAL
    Search
  41. Syllabus Air Line Pilots Association V. Miller
    Search
  42. Teachers v. Hudson
    Search
  43. In Teachers v. Hudson
    Search
  44. Compare Lancaster v. Air
    Search
  45. Knight v. Kenai
    Search
  46. and Bromley v. Michigan
    Search
  47. Communications Workers v. Beck
    Search
  48. In Abood v. Detroit
    Search
  49. In Lehnert v. Ferris
    Search
  50. See Lehnert v. Ferris
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial