GAINEY ET AL.

v.

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS & STATION EMPLOYEES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Butler v. Local Union 823, 514 F.2d 442 (8th Cir. 1975)
  …hat the union will fulfill its duty properly, and that there will be no occasion for a § 301 suit.12 Cf., Gainey v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, 275 F.Supp. 292, 307 (E.D. Pa.1967), aff’d, 406 F. 2d 744 (3rd Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 998, 89 S.Ct. 1590, 22 L.Ed.2d 775 (1969). We, therefore, conclude that the District Court was correct in holding that neither the action against the Employer nor the action against the Local was barred by the appropriate statute of limitations. [*451]…
• Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass'n & Marion A. Steinbronn, 559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1977)
  …ele v. Davis, 399 Pa. at 511, 160 A. 2d at 714; Helmig, supra, 389 Pa. at 28 n. 3, 131 A. 2d at 626 n. 3. Cf. Gainey v. Brotherhood of Rwy. and Steamship Clerks, 275 F.Supp. 292, 306 (E.D.Pa. 1967), aff’d, 406 F. 2d 744 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 998, 89 S.Ct. 1590, 22 L.Ed.2d 775 (1969). We therefore conclude that Meyers’ action under §§ 1981 and 1982 is not time-barred.27 IV. We have determined that Meyers had standing to maintain his action and that his claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1…
• United States v. Skeeter Cyphers and David Willman, 553 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir. 1977)
  …appear to be saying that an expert’s opinion testimony must be expressed in terms of a reasonable scientific certainty in order to be admissible. There is no such requirement. United States v. Longfellow, 406 F. 2d 415, 416 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 998, 89 S.Ct. 1594, 22 L.Ed.2d 776 (1969); 3 Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 702[02], at 702-13. To the extent that State v. Holt, 17 Ohio St.2d 81, 246 N.E. 2d 365 (1969), expresses a contrary view, we find it unpersuasive.3 We adhere to the rule that an expert…