Opinion No. 72-209 (1972) Ag

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the specific elements of the underlying tort are irrelevant because “affirmative defenses [like the good-faith defense] need not relate to or rebut specific elements of an underlying claim”
• finding that defendant union was entitled to good-faith defense
• “finding the plaintiff’s claim that designation of an exclusive representative amounted to forced association was ‘foreclosed’ by Knight where the employees were not required to join the union”
• finding the plaintiff's claim that designation of an exclusive representative amounted to forced association was \foreclosed\ by Knight where the employees were not required to join the union
• affirming the 13 district court’s application of the good-faith defense because “CSEA 14 relied on a validly enacted state law and the controlling weight of 15 Supreme Court precedent,” and thus it was “objectively reasonable for 16 CSEA ‘to act on the basis of a statute not yet held invalid’”
• “When resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a district court may refer to evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).