DAVIS
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL.

U.S. | 1986-03-03
No. 85-844
475 U.S. 1057 Supreme Court of the United States (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 18 cases
Dissent
Justice White,

Justice White,

dissenting.

The question presented is what statute of limitations to borrow in this suit against a union for an alleged violation of a former member’s rights under §101 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U. S. C. § 411. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that in light of DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983), the appropriate source from which to borrow a limitations period is not state law but § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b). 765 F. 2d 1510 (1985). Although not without support in other Circuits, see, e. g., Local Union 1397 v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 748 F. 2d 180 (CA3 1984), the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case conflicts with Doty v. Sewall, 784 F. 2d 1 (CA1 1986). Doty explicitly rejects the analysis of this case and Local Union 1397, supra, and holds that the usual practice of borrowing statutes of limitations from state law should be followed in a suit like this one. I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Reed v. United Transp. Union, 488 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989)
    …nited Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 818 F. 2d 623 (CA7 1987), cert. pending No. 87-42; Davis v. United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of America, 765 F. 2d 1510 (CA11 1985), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1057 (1986); and Local Union 1397, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 748 F. 2d 180 (CA3 1984) (applying § 10(b) statute of limitations). The practical concerns that we held made state limitations periods…
  • Rollin Lewis v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, 826 F.2d 1310 (3d Cir. 1987)
    …RDA because “dissension within a union naturally affects that union’s activities and effectiveness in the collective bargaining arena.” Id. at 184. See also Davis v. United Automobile Workers of America, 765 F. 2d 1510 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1057, 106 S.Ct. 1284, 89 L.Ed.2d 592 (1986) (applying section 10(b) limitations period to LMRDA claim); but see Doty v. Sewall, 784 F. 2d 1 (1st Cir.1986) (holding section 10(b) inapplicable to LMRDA claim brought by union activist against two local unio…
  • Hechler v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 834 F.2d 942 (11th Cir. 1987)
    …the NLRA, was designed to accommodate a balancing of these national interests against the employees’ interests in avoiding unjust settlements. See id. at 168-70, 103 S.Ct. at 2292-94; Davis v. UAW, 765 F. 2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1057, 106 S.Ct. 1284, 89 L.Ed.2d 592 (1986). Thus, because “a rule from elsewhere in federal law clearly provide[d] a closer analogy than available state statutes, and [because] the federal policies at stake and the practicalities of litigation [made] t…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw