Mitchell v. Cunningham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding repudiation lawfully permitted under the One-Employee Unit Rule when no employees in unit for three years
• holding the one-employee unit rule applied and “[t]he CBA in this case is therefore void”
• “The obligation to contribute to the Trust Funds depends upon the existence of employment covered by the CBA. Once the CBA was lawfully repudiated, there was no longer any covered employment and thus there was no duty on Westlake’s part to contribute to the Trust Funds.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).