Barnard Engineering Co., Inc.; Fire Sprinkler, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,294 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,637 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."
United States v. Mendoza
464 U.S. 154 (1984) Cited 581 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party
Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
417 U.S. 249 (1974) Cited 366 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd
461 U.S. 260 (1983) Cited 132 times
Holding that "[n]othing in the legislative history of § 8(f) indicates Congress intended employers to obtain free the benefits of stable labor costs, labor peace, and the use of the union hiring hall. Having had the music, he must pay the piper."
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 357 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Johnston v. Silva
449 U.S. 1125 (1981) Cited 116 times
Construing § 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act
Carpenters Local U #1846 v. Pratt-Farnsworth
690 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 184 times
Holding that a § 301 claim for breach of contract may be stated under an alter ego theory where the defendant had not signed the CBA

Barnard Engineering Co., Inc.; Fire Sprinkler, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."

Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party

Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees

Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

Holding that "[n]othing in the legislative history of § 8(f) indicates Congress intended employers to obtain free the benefits of stable labor costs, labor peace, and the use of the union hiring hall. Having had the music, he must pay the piper."

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Construing § 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act

Holding that a § 301 claim for breach of contract may be stated under an alter ego theory where the defendant had not signed the CBA