Skip to main content
· 10/28/1996

Prudden v. E.J. Brach Corp.

Citations

  • 946 F. Supp. 572
  • 155 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2998
  • 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16339
  • 1996 WL 637602

How courts have described this case

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

  • “the CBA’s language is mandatory, not permissive. Prudden’s claim for breach is one that ‘shall’ be considered a grievance, which Brach and the Union ‘will’ cooperate to settle.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Castillo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.