Stovall v. Illinois

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that once a plaintiff is told in no uncertain terms that every possible avenue for relief had been exhausted, the fact that she continued to pursue her appeal after receiving such notice was a nullity and did not alter her accrual date
• holding claims are not preempted that “only ‘tangentially’ involve CBA provisions”
• finding a breach of contract and promissory estoppel claim are pre- empted by federal labor law because employees covered by a CBA cannot rely upon the existence of a separate, individual employment contract giving rise to state law claims
• “[E]mployees covered by a CBA cannot rely upon the existence of a separate, individual employment contract giving rise to state law claims.”
• “employees covered by a 5 CBA cannot rely upon the existence of a separate, individual employment contract giving rise to state law claims.”
• “[E]mployees covered by a CBA cannot rely upon the existence of a separate, individual employment contract giving rise to state law claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).