Vaduz v. 11 E. 73rd St. Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• tolling the limitations period where appellants were “affirmatively asked” to refrain from suit and were told that their problem would be solved without the “need for civil suit”
• tolling the limitations period where appellants were \affirmatively asked\ to refrain from suit and were told that their problem would be solved without the \need for civil suit\
• “if a reasonable doubt exists as to whether the dispute is major or minor, we will deem it to be minor.”
• “[T]he fact that [some] employees do not benefit under the . . . Agreement does not in and of itself constitute ‘discrimination’ amounting to a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation.”
• mere “allegations that . . . Board members were ‘prejudiced’ do not amount to a charge of ‘fraud or corruption’ within the meaning of the RLA” where plaintiff alleged one member “was necessarily biased by virtue of his position as the [defendant’s] Director of Personnel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).