ABF Freight System, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that ABF possessed a legally protected interest in enforcing its contract with the bargaining unit although ABF was not an actual party to the multi-employer, collective-bargaining agreement that ABF alleged was violated
• agreeing with defendants’ argument “that the existence (or violation) of a collective- bargaining agreement is a jurisdictional requirement under section 301(a)”
• reviewing Supreme Court case law holding that allegations are sufficient for section 301 jurisdiction, mentioning plaintiff’s “colorable claims” of labor contract violation, but also confirming formation of contract as factual matter
• reviewing Supreme Court case law holding that allegations are sufficient for section 301 jurisdiction, mentioning plaintiffs colorable claims of labor contract violation, but also confirming formation of contract as factual matter
• remanding for the district court to consider the Rule 12(b)(6) motion in the first instance even though the appellees had filed a motion to dismiss under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) because “[t]he district court’s 12(b)(1
• \[T]he Garmon preemption doctrine is simply 'not relevant' where there is a claim under section 301 asserting a breach of the collective bargaining agreement.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).