Casida v. International Union of Operating Engineers

Texas Supreme Court

Casida v. International Union of Operating Engineers

383 S.W.2d 571, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 29, 1964

DocketNo. A-10153

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 383 S.W.2d 571 (Casida v. International Union of Operating Engineers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casida v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 383 S.W.2d 571, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448 (Tex. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit by twenty-eight former members of a labor union against their union. The trial court gave judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed such judgment, holding that the area of conduct in question was pre-empted from state law by federal legislation. 376 S.W.2d 814.

We refuse to grant this application for writ of error solely on the ground that the conduct in question is arguably subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. See Local 100, United Association of Journeymen v. Borden, 373 U.S. 690, 83 S.Ct. 1423, 10 L.Ed.2d 638 (1963); San Diego Building Trades Council, etc. v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775; Local No. 207, Intern. Ass’n, etc., Iron Workers Union v. Perko, 373 U.S. 701, 83 S.Ct. 1429, 10 L.Ed.2d 646. Compare International Association of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617, 78 S.Ct. 923, 2 L.Ed.2d 1018. Hence, the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit by twenty-eight former members of a labor union against their union. The trial court gave judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed such judgment, holding that the area of conduct in question was pre-empted from state law by federal legislation. 376 S.W.2d 814.

We refuse to grant this application for writ of error solely on the ground that the conduct in question is arguably subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. See Local 100, United Association of Journeymen v. Borden, 373 U.S. 690, 83 S.Ct. 1423, 10 L.Ed.2d 638 (1963); San Diego Building Trades Council, etc. v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775; Local No. 207, Intern. Ass’n, etc., Iron Workers Union v. Perko, 373 U.S. 701, 83 S.Ct. 1429, 10 L.Ed.2d 646. Compare International Association of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617, 78 S.Ct. 923, 2 L.Ed.2d 1018. Hence, the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 S.W.2d 571, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casida-v-international-union-of-operating-engineers-tex-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack