Michael Luecke v. Schnucks Markets, Inc., a Missouri Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• “For federal question jurisdiction, the federal question generally must appear on the face of the complaint.”
• court would not read confidentiality provision into CBA when there was no evidence that company’s unilaterally adopted drug-testing policy was longstanding practice or custom from which to infer incorporation
• “[W]hile the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement will perhaps be ‘consulted,’ they need not be interpreted in order to resolve any qualified privilege defense that [defendant] may raise in the state defamation proceeding.”
• no preemption where “no express or implied term in [the CBA] guides the factual inquiry into whether the speakers actually [uttered the allegedly defamatory statements], whether their statements were false, whether malice attached, and whether damages resulted”
• federal question generally must appear on face of complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).