William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters District Council

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the Board’s authority is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under 301”
• an action based on 29 U.S.C. § 185 alleging breach of union’s duty of fair representation may be brought in state court
• \[T]he Garmon doctrine is not relevant to actions within the purview of Sec. 301....\
• “the Garmon doctrine is ‘not relevant’ to actions within the purview of § 301”
• “We are … permitted to enjoin employer actions in order to preserve the status quo in aid of arbitration.”
• “[T]he Garmon doctrine is not relevant to actions within the purview of § 301....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).