MORPHY, RECEIVER, ET AL.

v.

GRAND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Rutland Ry. Corp. v. Bhd. OF Locomotive Eng'rs, 307 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …restraining management from disturbing the status quo. These' “freeze”9 or “cooling-off”10 provisions have been held to be enforceable by the [*44] courts. Grand International Brotherhood, etc. v. Morphy, 109 F. 2d 576 (2 Cir., 1940); cert. denied 310 U.S. 635, 60 S.Ct. 1078, 84 L.Ed. 1404 (1940); Railroad Yardmasters v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 224 F. 2d 226 (3 Cir., 1955). No provision is made, however, for the compulsory resolution of substantive issues in major disputes, and the parties are free to resor…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Pepsico, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 472 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …54 S.Ct. 475, 78 L.Ed. 894 (1934); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105, 38 S.Ct. 438, 62 L.Ed. 1006 (1918); New Orleans v. Warner, 175 U.S. 120, 20 S.Ct. 44, 44 L.Ed. 96 (1899); Burke v. Morphy, 109 F. 2d 572 (2d Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 310 U.S. 635, 60 S.Ct. 1078, 84 L.Ed. 1404 (1940); McGhee v. United States, 437 F. 2d 995, 194 Ct.Cl. 86 (1971). Perhaps all that is meant by “bound” is the same argument advanced concerning the decision in National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 60 S.Ct.…
• Brotherhood of Railway v. REA Express, Inc., 523 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1975)
  …n under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, did not come under Chapter X of that Act. See H.R.Rep. No. 1897, 72d Cong., 2d Sess. (1933); Sen.Rep. No. 92-1158, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). . We construe Burke v. Morphy, 109 F. 2d 572 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 310 U.S. 635, 60 S.Ct. 1078, 84 L.Ed. 1404 (1940), relied upon by appellants, as also deáling with a situation in which the receiver had implicitly adopted the debtor’s labor agreements. . As one commentator observed: “It is doubtful that the Penn Central reor…