Teamsters Local 122

45 Cited authorities

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
447 U.S. 752 (1980) Cited 2,912 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”
Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite
396 U.S. 375 (1970) Cited 1,418 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that causation of damages by materially misleading proxy misstatement could be established by showing that proxy solicitation was an "essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction"
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.
424 U.S. 747 (1976) Cited 1,099 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement
F. D. Rich Co., v. Industrial Lumber Co.
417 U.S. 116 (1974) Cited 984 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Miller Act requirement that suits be brought in specific federal courts was “merely a venue requirement” that could be waived
Hall v. Cole
412 U.S. 1 (1973) Cited 962 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members, and reimbursing the attorneys' fees from the union treasury, such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Amax Coal Co.
453 U.S. 322 (1981) Cited 366 times
Holding that a management-appointed trustee to a multiemployer pension plan could not be considered a management representative
Clayco Petroleum Corp. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
464 U.S. 1040 (1984) Cited 229 times
Finding that a U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor serving in an investigator capacity who committed perjury has undertaken "an activity beyond the scope of his authority, in clear violation of the law and far removed from the discretionary areas of judicial process traditionally protected by the quasi-judicial immunity doctrine"
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent
Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council
341 U.S. 675 (1951) Cited 494 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

Teamsters Local 122

45 Cited authorities

Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”

Holding that causation of damages by materially misleading proxy misstatement could be established by showing that proxy solicitation was an "essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction"

Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

Holding that a Miller Act requirement that suits be brought in specific federal courts was “merely a venue requirement” that could be waived

Holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members, and reimbursing the attorneys' fees from the union treasury, such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that a management-appointed trustee to a multiemployer pension plan could not be considered a management representative

Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce