Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
No. 14176
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 286 F.2d 235
December 15, 1960
Joseph E. Finley, Cleveland, Ohio (Rudd, Ober, Finley & Miller, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
Merritt W. Green, Toledo, Ohio, for appellees.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and WEICK, Circuit Judges.
This appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court, dismissing the complaint of appellants, has been heard and considered upon the record and upon the oral arguments and briefs of the parties.
This court is of opinion that the district Court correctly construed Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 [29 U.S.C.A. § 185(a)] and was free from error in holding that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation. The contract here involved is not a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a labor organization representing its employees. We think that the trial court was correct in reaching the conclusion that collective bargaining contracts between a union and an employer are the only contracts intended to be actionable in a United States District Court under the provisions of section 301(a).
In our judgment, United States District Judge Kloeb was right in concluding that he was without jurisdiction in this case. He, therefore, properly dismissed the complaint.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.