§
Joe White IGA

4 Cited authorities

  1. Genesco v. Joint Coun. 13, United Shoe Workers

    341 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 37 times

    No. 228, Docket 29178. Argued December 2, 1964. Decided February 5, 1965. Madeline Balk, New York City (Seligman Seligman, New York City, Edward F. Seligman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant. Marshall Rosenberg, New York City (Lieberman, Katz Aronson, New York City, Isadore Katz, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees. Before FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge. Sitting by designation. FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge: In a decision reported

  2. Roadway Express v. Gen. Teamsters

    330 F.2d 859 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 38 times
    In Roadway Express, Inc. v. General Teamsters, 330 F.2d 859, decided in this Circuit in 1964, a similar situation arose involving several proposed agreements, negotiations pursuant thereto and an alleged telegraphic acceptance.

  3. Retail Clerks Union, No. 1550 v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 18 times

    No. 17726. Argued November 27, 1963. Decided January 23, 1964. Mr. S.G. Lippman, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Russell Specter, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioners. Mr. Tim L. Bornstein, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioners. Mr. Warren M. Davison, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Peter M. Giesey, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board

  4. Line Drivers Local No. 961 v. W.J. Digby, Inc.

    218 F. Supp. 519 (D. Colo. 1963)   Cited 7 times

    Civ. A. No. 7328. June 12, 1963. Myrick, Smith Criswell, John A. Criswell, Englewood, Colo., for plaintiff. Albert B. Dawkins, Robert H. Kiley and Paul M. Hupp, Denver, Colo., for defendant. DOYLE, District Judge. This matter was tried to the Court on March 11 and 12, 1963; thereafter, briefs were filed and the matter was finally submitted on June 10, 1963. The court's findings are incorporated in this memorandum and formal findings are unnecessary. The action seeks specific performance of an agreement