Checker Taxi Co. v. Dugan

D. Massachusetts

Checker Taxi Co. v. Dugan

104 F. Supp. 34, 30 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2289, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4258

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMarch 12, 1952

DocketCiv. Nos. 52-159, 52-162

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 F. Supp. 34 (Checker Taxi Co. v. Dugan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Checker Taxi Co. v. Dugan, 104 F. Supp. 34, 30 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2289, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4258 (D. Mass. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

The Court acting on its own motion orders the above two cases remanded to the State Court for trial. Jurisdiction is declined on the authority of Thayer Co. v. Binnall, D.C., 82 F.Supp. 566, 568. As pointed out in that case, the jurisdiction of this Court extends to “suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization”. A reading of the pleadings in the instant case shows that there is no violation of a contract that is complained of. The plaintiff is seeking an injunction against what it calls outside interference in the calling of a wildcat strike, contending that the defendants have no standing as bargaining agents for their employees. This is a matter to which the jurisdiction of this Court does not extend. Accordingly both cases will be remanded to the State Court.

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

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

The Court acting on its own motion orders the above two cases remanded to the State Court for trial. Jurisdiction is declined on the authority of Thayer Co. v. Binnall, D.C., 82 F.Supp. 566, 568. As pointed out in that case, the jurisdiction of this Court extends to “suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization”. A reading of the pleadings in the instant case shows that there is no violation of a contract that is complained of. The plaintiff is seeking an injunction against what it calls outside interference in the calling of a wildcat strike, contending that the defendants have no standing as bargaining agents for their employees. This is a matter to which the jurisdiction of this Court does not extend. Accordingly both cases will be remanded to the State Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F. Supp. 34, 30 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2289, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/checker-taxi-co-v-dugan-mad-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack