Ricky C. Stafford v. Ford Motor Company, and United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of America (Uaw Union)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing a contrary rule allowing consideration on appeal of newly raised arguments “could encourage a party to ‘sandbag’ at the district court level, only then to place his ‘ace in the hole’ before the appellate court”
• remanding even when appellant failed to raise the issue in the district court, because the district court only analyzed whether appellant complied with one of two permissible procedures to exhaust internal union appeals
• noting that the rule’s rationale is twofold because, without consideration by the district court, the record for appellate review would be insufficient and because “there is an inherent injustice in allowing an appellant to raise an issue for the first time on appeal”
• “The district courts cannot be expected to consider matters that the parties have not expressly called to their attention, even when such matters arguably are within the scope of the issues that the parties have raised.”
• “‘[W]hat questions may be taken up and resolved . . . is . . . left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeal, to be exercised on the facts of individual cases.’” (quoting Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).