PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO.
v.
M/V CAPT. W. D. CARGILL ET AL.
Justice White,
dissenting.
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, respecting the District Court’s dismissal of a declaratory action, that review is limited to the question of whether the District Court abused its discretion. 751 F. 2d 801, 804 (1985). This standard of review conflicts with that adopted by other Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., Bilbrey v. Brown, 738 F. 2d 1462, 1470 (CA9 1984) (whether a district court properly exercised its discretion to grant declaratory relief is subject to more searching review on appeal than under the “abuse of discretion” standard); International Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co., 623 F. 2d 1207, 1217 (CA7 1980) (a court of appeals, in deciding whether jurisdiction should be taken in a declaratory action, does not defer to the judgment of the district court, but must exercise its own sound discretion). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1988)…claim, Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172, 384 N. E. 2d 353 (1978),6 and [*407] have held that it is applicable to employees covered by union contracts, Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc., 105 Ill. 2d 143, 473 N. E. 2d 1280 (1984), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 909 (1985). “[T]o show retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff must set forth sufficient facts from'which it can be inferred that (1) he was discharged or threatened with discharge and (2) the employer’s motive in discharging or threatening to discharge hi…
-
Jonna R. Lingle v. Norge Div. OF Magic Chef, Inc., 823 F.2d 1031 (7th Cir. 1987)…ments: New Obstacles Imposed By Federal Labor Law Preemption, 1985 S.Ill.L.Rev. 707, 709 (footnote omitted). This uncertainty was resolved in Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc., 105 Ill.2d 143, 85 Ill.Dec. 475, 473 N.E. 2d 1280 (1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 909, 106 S.Ct. 278, 88 L.Ed.2d 243 (1985), in which the court held that an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement could file suit against an employer if the employer had discharged the employee in retaliation for seeking benefits under th…
-
Prestress Eng'g Corp. v. Gonzalez, 483 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1987)…when the suing employee is covered by a collective-bargaining agreement. The Illinois Supreme Court here, relying on its earlier opinion in Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc., 105 Ill. 2d 143, 473 N. E. 2d 1280, cert. denied, 472 U. S. 1032 (1984) and 474 U. S. 909 (1985), held that the state claim was not pre-empted. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, faced with an almost identical state-law claim for retaliatory discharge, concluded that under our opinion in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bilbrey v. Garland Brown, 738 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Int'l Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co., 623 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)
- Pac. Emp'rs Ins. Co. v. M/V Capt. W.D. Cargill, 751 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1985)