George Anthony Cornelio v. Metropolitan District Council Of Philadelphia And Vicinity

358 F.2d 728
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMay 2, 1966
Docket15596
StatusPublished

This text of 358 F.2d 728 (George Anthony Cornelio v. Metropolitan District Council Of Philadelphia And Vicinity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George Anthony Cornelio v. Metropolitan District Council Of Philadelphia And Vicinity, 358 F.2d 728 (3d Cir. 1966).

Opinion

358 F.2d 728

George Anthony CORNELIO, Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY
OF UNITEDBROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO by Robert H. Gray,Secretary-Treasurer and Robert H.
Gray, Personally, and Local Union No. 1856 ofthe
UnitedBrotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, by
Clayton Doyle, Presidentand United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, by MauriceHutcheson, Jr., President
and Benjamin T. Gray and George Gushue, Appellees.

No. 15596.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 7, 1966.
Decided April 6, 1966, Reharing Denied May 2, 1966.

Edward L. Minnich, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

M. H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Before SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiff attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of the court below under 102 of the landrum-Griffin Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 412. The present appeal is from the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This dismissal was proper. The only rights and privileges redressable under the said section are those specified in 101 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 411. See Hughes v. Local No. 11 of International Ass'n of Bridge, etc., 287 F.2d 810 (3rd Cir. 1961). The obvious deficiency in the complaint is its failure to allege the infringement of any such right or privilege.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 F.2d 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-anthony-cornelio-v-metropolitan-district-council-of-philadelphia-ca3-1966.