UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
v.
RAILING ET AL., DBA C & P COAL CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in a dispute between the United Mine Workers of America and coal company operators regarding whether Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act are distinguishable in determining when a cause of action accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.*, directing further exploration of the timing requirements for accrual under these statutes.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The petition, for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., ante, p. 321. Both § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 158, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 187, and § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15, give a cause of action for injury to business or property. Whether suits under the two statutes are distinguishable for purposes of determining the time at which a cause of action accrues warrants further exploration by the Court of Appeals. Further attention should also be given to the question of why a § 303 cause of action has sufficiently accrued to bring suit as soon as the plaintiff suffers damage but has not sufficiently accrued to start the running of the statute of limitations on the damages already suffered and for which suit may be but is not brought. •
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Harlan would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for argument on the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Consol. Express, Inc. v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 602 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1979)…substantive federal policy. Moviecolor, Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 288 F. 2d 80, 83-84 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 821, 82 S.Ct. 39, 7 L.Ed.2d 26 (1961). This principle has been recognized in § 303(b) cases. In United Mine Workers v. Railing, 401 U.S. 486, 91 S.Ct. 991, 28 [*507] L.Ed.2d 272 (1970), a case presenting, as does this, both a § 303(b) claim and an antitrust claim against a labor organization, the Court remanded to the Fourth Circuit so that it could consider whether the state statute of…
-
Ralph I. Selby in Bankr. for the Frimberger Corp. v. Ford Motor Co., 590 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1979)…cy shall release a bankrupt from all his provable debts, . . . except such as . . . (4) were created by his . . . misappropriation or defalcation while acting . . in any fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 35. . United States v. Randall, 401 U.S. 513, 91 S.Ct. 991, 28 L.Ed.2d 273 (1971) and England v. United States, 546 F. 2d 821 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 974, 97 S.Ct. 2939, 53 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1977), appear to hold that tax trusts established by statute in favor of federal or state taxing authorit…
-
In re Kennedy & Cohen, Inc. v. Reese, 612 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1980)…n certain contexts. However, it is a federal question whether a trust, whether express or constructive, which cannot be traced to specific assets, will attach to the creditors’ general funds in bankruptcy. In United States v. Randall, 401 U.S. 513, 91 S.Ct. 991, 28 L.Ed.2d 273 (1971) the Court held that the Bankruptcy Act is an overriding expression of federal policy which precludes the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the I.R.S. against bankruptcy assets, even where the ingredients for a con…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence