Ralph L. Born v. R. J. Laube

214 F.2d 349, 15 Alaska 96
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 15, 1954·No. 13304_1·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing is predicated largely upon the claim that our decision is in conflict with the intervening holding of the Supreme Court in United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corporation, 347 U.S. 656, 74 S.Ct. 833.

We have carefully considered the Laburnum decision and are of opinion that it is distinguishable inasmuch as the complaining party there, under the Labor Management Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., was wholly without remedy in damages for the tortious conduct of the Union. Here the complaining employee had available the remedy of reinstatement with back pay. Moreover, unlike Laburnum, there was no violence or threat of violence which might serve to bring the cause within the area of the Territorial police power.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

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

Ralph L. Born v. R. J. Laube, 214 F.2d 349, 15 Alaska 96 (9th Cir. 1954).

214 F.2d 349 (Ralph L. Born v. R. J. Laube) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garmon v. San Diego Building Trades Council
320 P.2d 473 (California Supreme Court, 1958)