OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON

v.

WASHINGTON AREA CARPENTERS' WELFARE FUND ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558 (U.S. 1984)
  …claim was improper. The court also held that Ronwin had standing to bring this action. The case was remanded to the District Court for further action.16 We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ application of the state-action doctrine. 461 U. S. 926 (1983). We now reverse. II The starting point in any analysis involving the state-action doctrine is the reasoning of Parker v. Brown. In Parker, the Court considered the antitrust implications of the California Agriculture Prorate Act — a state s…
• Laborers Health & Welf. Tr. Fund for N. Cal. v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., Inc., 484 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1988)
  …employer of obligation to contribute under prehire agreement; decision criticized); Washington Area Carpenters' Welfare Fund v. Overhead Door Co., 488 F. Supp. 816 (DC 1980) (same), rev’d, 220 U. S. App. D. C. 273, 681 F. 2d 1 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U. S. 926 (1983). See also 126 Cong. Rec. 23288 (1980) (floor statement of Sen. Williams, identical to that of Rep. Thompson). Petitioners advance three unpersuasive arguments for the opposite conclusion. First, petitioners offer an alternative reading of wh…
• Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr. & Operating Eng'rs Health & Welf. Fund v. Beck Eng'g & Surveying Co., 746 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1984)
  …e-hire agreement was repudiated no later than the date specified in an employer’s notice of intent to terminate the agreement. Id.; see also Washington Area Carpenters’ Welfare Fund v. Overhead Door Co., 681 F. 2d 1, 9 (D.C.Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 926, 103 S.Ct. 2085, 77 L.Ed.2d 296 (1983). We need not decide whether an employer of more than one employee may rely on affirmative conduct other than a petition for a representation proceeding under Section 9 to repudiate a Section 8(f) agreement, an…