|
|
|
|
Labor & Employment Cases, Federal and State
FILE-NAME: MEGA
COVERAGE: May vary by court. Please refer to guide document for individual
courts for coverage information.
FREQUENCY: As received from the court
CONTENT-SUMMARY:
Labor & Employment Cases, Federal and State (MEGA) contains selected federal and state caselaw on labor and employment related matters, including U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, U.S. Federal District Courts and State Caselaw for all 50 States plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and other U.S. territories. Also included are specialty courts such as Military Appeals, Customs, Patents, Tax, Trade, Commerce, Veteran Appeals and Bankruptcy.
Refer to the guide document for specific courts to obtain coverage and
currentness information.
SELECTED DOCUMENTS:
1st Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases & Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
1st Circuit - US District Court Cases
2nd Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
2nd Circuit - US District Court Cases
3rd Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
3rd Circuit - US District Court Cases
4th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
4th Circuit - US District Court Cases
5th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
5th Circuit - US District Court Cases
6th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
6th Circuit - US District Court Cases
7th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
7th Circuit - US District Court Cases
8th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
8th Circuit - US District Court Cases
9th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases & Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
9th Circuit - US District Court Cases
10th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
10th Circuit - US District Court Cases
11th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
11th Circuit - US District Court Cases
AK Court of Appeals Cases from 1980
AK Supreme Court Cases from 1959
AL Court of Appeals Cases, 1911-69
AL Court of Civil Appeals Cases from 1969
AL Court of Criminal Appeals Cases from 1969
AL Supreme Court Cases from 1820
AR Court of Appeals Cases from 1979
AR Supreme Court Cases from 1837
Arizona Tax Court Cases
AZ Court of Appeals Cases from 1965
AZ Supreme Court Cases from 1866
CA Courts of Appeal Cases from 1905
CA Supreme Court Cases from 1850
CO Court of Appeals Cases from 1891
CO Supreme Court Cases from 1864
CT Circuit Court Cases, 1961-1974
CT Court of Appeals Cases from 1983
CT Superior Court - Common Pleas Cases from 1935
CT Supreme Court Cases from 1764
DC Court of Appeals Cases from 1925
DC Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 2001
DE Court of Chancery Cases from 1814
DE Superior Court Cases from 1885
DE Supreme Court Cases from 1790
District of Columbia Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
District of Columbia Circuit - US District Court Cases
Federal Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
FL Courts of Appeal Cases from 1957
FL Supreme Court Cases from 1846
GA Court of Appeals Cases from 1907
GA Supreme Court Cases from 1846
GU Supreme Court Cases from 1996
HI Court of Appeals Cases from 1980
HI Supreme Court Cases from 1847
IA Court of Appeals Cases from 1977
IA Supreme Court Cases from 1839
ID Court of Appeals Cases from 1982
ID Supreme Court Cases from 1866
ID Unpublished Cases from 2009
IL Court of Appeals Cases from 1877
IL Court of Claims Cases from 1889
IL Supreme Court Cases from 1819
IN Appeals Court Cases from 1891
IN Supreme Court Cases from 1817
IN Unpublished Cases from 2009
Indiana Tax Court Cases
KS Court of Appeals Cases from 1895
KS Supreme Court Cases from 1858
KS Unpublished Cases from 2007
KY Court of Appeals Cases from 1976
KY Supreme Court Cases from 1785
KY Unpublished Cases from 2009
LA Court of Appeals Cases from 1881
LA Supreme Court Cases from 1809
LA Unpublished Cases from 2007
MA Court of Appeals Cases from 1972
MA Supreme Judicial Court Cases from 1768
MD Circuit Court Cases of Maryland from 2003
MD Court of Appeals of Maryland from 1658
MD Court of Special Appeals of Maryland from 1967
MI Court of Appeals Cases from 1965
MI Supreme Court Cases from 1841
MN Appeals Court Published Cases from 1983
MN Appeals Court Unpublished Cases from 1987
MN Supreme Court Cases from 1861
MO Appeals Court Cases from 1876
MO Supreme Court from 1821
MS Court of Appeals Cases from 1995
MS Supreme Court Cases from 1818
MT Supreme Court Cases from 1868
NC Court of Appeals Cases from 1968
NC Supreme Court Cases from 1778
ND Appeals Court Cases from 1987
ND Supreme Court Cases from 1867
NE Court of Appeals Cases from 1992
NE Supreme Court Cases from 1871
NJ Chancery Court Cases 1830 - 1948
NJ Prerogative Court Cases 1831 - 1948
NJ Superior Court Cases from 1948
NJ Supreme Court Cases from 1821
NJ Supreme Court Cases (OLD) 1789 - 1948
NJ Unpublished Cases from 2005
NM Court of Appeals Cases from 1966
NM Supreme Court Cases from 1852
NM Unpublished Cases from 2007
Northern Mariana Islands Cases
NV Supreme Court Cases from 1865
NY Court of Appeals Cases from 1794
NY Lower Court Cases from 1851
NY Supreme Court Cases - Appellate Division from 1875
OH Courts of Appeals Cases from 1913
OH Miscellaneous Cases from 1823
OH Supreme Court Cases from 1821
OK Court of Appeals Cases from 1968
OK Court of Criminal Appeals from 1908
OK Supreme Court Cases from 1884
OR Courts of Appeals Cases from 1969
OR Supreme Court Cases from 1847
PA Commonwealth Court Cases from 1971
PA Superior Court from 1895
PA Supreme Court Cases from 1791
Philadelphia County Decisions from 1918
PR - Decisiones del Circuito de Apelaciones de Puerto Rico
PR - Decisiones del Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico
RI Superior Court Decisions from 1980
RI Supreme Court Cases from 1828
SC Court of Appeals Cases from 1983
SC Supreme Court Cases from 1867
SC Unpublished Cases from 2007
SD Supreme Court Cases from 1867
TN Court of Appeals Cases from 1925
TN Court of Criminal Appeals Cases from 1967
TN Supreme Court Cases from 1791
TX Court of Appeals and Court of Civil Appeals Cases from 1892
TX Court of Criminal Appeals Cases from 1879
TX Supreme Court Cases from 1840
TX Unpublished Cases from 2007
U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers' Edition
US Court of Customs & Patent Appeals Cases
US Court of Federal Claims, Claims Court & Court of Claims Cases
UT Court of Appeals Published Cases from 1987
UT Court of Appeals Unpublished Cases from 1998
UT Supreme Court Cases from 1861
VA Court of Appeals Cases from 1985
VA Supreme Court Cases from 1730
VI Superior & Territorial Cases from 1959
VI Supreme Court Cases from 2007
WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969
WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854
WI Court of Appeals Cases from 1978
WI Supreme Court Cases from 1839
WV Supreme Court Cases from 1864
WY Supreme Court Cases from 1870
PUBLISHER:
Government Printing Office
Washington, DC
SPECIAL-CHAR:
The DATE segment can be restricted using BEF, AFT or = commands.
DOC-DESCRIPTION:
A document consists of a single case or disposition. Majority opinions,
decisions, and orders along with accompanying concurring or dissenting opinions.
DISPLAY-SEQUENCE:
Documents display in reverse chronological order.
USE-TIPS:
Caselaw on the the LEXIS (R) Service contains many features to aid you finding
the most current and complete research results possible.
LEXSEE:
When you know the official or parallel cite to a case, including the LEXIS
cite, you can view that case from anywhere on the LEXIS service. Simply enter
LEXSEE (or LXE) and the cite. For example:
LXE 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4751
LINKS:
Within caselaw documents embedded citations and citations the United States
Code are marked with highlighted LINKS (R). The cited case or code section can
be viewed in full by simply entering = and the number in the highlighted LINK.
For Example, in the following paragraph:
(a) A review of the Court's relevant decisions demonstrates the constitutional
requirements regarding consideration of mitigating circumstances by sentencers
in capital cases. Although the sentencer cannot be precluded from considering,
as a mitigating factor, any aspect of the defendant's character or record and
any of the circumstances of the particular offense that the defendant proffers
as a basis for a sentence [*3] less than death, see, e.g., <=3> Lockett
v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973, 98 S. Ct. 2954 (plurality
opinion); <=4> Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1, 102 S. Ct.
869, States are free to structure and shape consideration of mitigating
evidence in an effort to achieve a more rational and equitable administration
of the death penalty, see, e.g., <=5> Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370,
377. <=6> Pp.8-11, 108 L. Ed. 2d 316, 110 S. Ct. 1190 .
=3 will retrieve Lockett v. Ohio
=4 will retrieve Eddings v. Oklahoma
=5 will retrieve Boyde v. California
You can return to the case (or cases) in your original result set by entering
EXIT SERVICE (or .es).
PAGINATION:
All LEXIS caselaw is paginated. Cases include LEXIS pagination along
with the pagination from official and parallel reporters. To move to a specific
page enter p* and the number of the page. When more than one pagination system
is used for a case, the page numbers are differentiated by the number of stars
(asterisks) preceding the page number. When a case contains official
pagination, those page numbers will always be preceded by a single star.
At any point in your result set you may enter p to view a listing of the number
of pages and LEXIS screen faces in a particular case.
AUTO-CITE:
You can enter the AUTO-CITE (R) service from anywhere on LEXIS by entering AC.
This electronic citation service of Lawyers Cooperative Publishing provides you
with the prior history and official status of case law citations.
You may auto-cite the case you are viewing automatically by simply entering AC.
Return to your result set by entering EXIT SERVICE (or .es).
Note: You may automatically auto-cite embedded case citations by entering =,
the LINK number and ac. For example =2ac.
SHEPARD'S:
Shepard's(R) Citations are publications of Shepard's, a member of the
LEXIS-NEXIS Group. Using Shepard's on the LEXIS service allows you to
simultaneously search the bound volumes of Shepard's Federal, State and National
Reporter System, and their supplements. Simply enter Shepards (or Shep or sh)
and the cite of the case you wish to Shepardize. For example:
SH 401 U.S. 1
Like the Auto-cite service you can automatically Shepardize the case you are
viewing by entering SH. You may Shepardize embedded citations by entering =,
the LINK number and sh. For example, =2sh.
Return to your original result set by entering EXIT SERVICE or .es.
An additional benefit of Shepard's on LEXIS is the ability, from within the
Shepard's service to view the text of the citing cases. This is done by simply
entering the number next to the citation. You may return to Shepard's by
entering resume shep, return to your original result set by entering EXIT
SERVICE, or use the new LOG FEATURE.
THE .LOG FEATURE:
The .LOG feature on LEXIS provides you with a 'map' of the services you have
used and a LINK back to those services. With so many options available on the
LEXIS service, it is possible to lose track of your exact location on the
information highway. .LOG is available to provide an easy LINK back to any
point in your research. Simply enter .log and LEXIS will display a list of the
LEXSEE, LEXSTAT, AUTO-CITE and SHEPARD'S choices you have made and provide a
quick LINK back to any of those choices.
Exit .LOG by pressing the ENTER key.
You may also use .LOG to retrieve any result set that you may have saved using
the .keep functionality.
.KEEP
After you have obtained a result set anywhere on LEXIS, you may save that
result set to your LOG and retrieve it, without charge, anytime during that
day!
Simply enter .keep from anywhere in your result set and it is saved to the log.
Note: Once you save a result set to the log you will be returned to your main
menu.
*****************************************************************************
For Help with LEXIS caselaw, or any materials, call Customer Service toll-free
at 1-800-543-6862
*****************************************************************************
HIER-LOC:
Area of Law - By Topic/Class Actions/Find Cases/By Area of Law
Area of Law - By Topic/Construction/Find Cases/Cases in Related Practice Areas/Labor
Area of Law - By Topic/Financial Services Industry - Critical Issues/Related Industries View/Labor & Employment/Research and Access Issues
Area of Law - By Topic/Financial Services Industry - Critical Issues/Related Industries View/Labor & Employment/Research and Access Issues/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/General Business/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Human Resources/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Labor & Employment/Find Cases
SAMPLE-DOC:
All case law documents on the LEXIS service appear in the same format.
The following sample document is from the United States Supreme Court. Please
note that not all jurisdictions will use all segments. For example, some courts
will use a "Syllabus" and others will not. Even within a jurisdiction some cases
will not contain all segments. For example, many cases will not contain a
"Concur" segment.
GARY DAVENPORT, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; WASHINGTON, PETITIONER v. WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Nos. 05-1589 and 05-1657
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
127 S. Ct. 2372; 168 L. Ed. 2d 71; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 7722; 75 U.S.L.W. 4423; 154 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P60,425; 181 L.R.R.M. 3281; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 346
January 10, 2007, Argued
June 14, 2007 * , Decided
* Together with No. 05-1657, Washington v. Washington Education Association, also on certiorari to the same court.
SYLLABUS
The National Labor Relations Act permits States to regulate their labor relationships with public employees. Many States authorize public-sector unions to negotiate agency-shop agreements that entitle a union to levy fees on employees who are not union members but whom the union represents in collective bargaining. However, the First Amendment prohibits public-sector unions from using objecting nonmembers' fees for ideological purposes not germane to the union's collective-bargaining duties, Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 235-236, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261, and such [***2] unions must therefore observe various procedural requirements to ensure that an objecting nonmember can keep his fees from being used for such purposes, Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 304-310, 106 S. Ct. 1066, 89 L. Ed. 2d 232. Washington State allows public-sector unions to charge nonmembers an agency fee equivalent to membership dues and to have the employer collect that fee through payroll deductions. An initiative approved by state voters (hereinafter § 760) requires a union to obtain the nonmembers' affirmative authorization before using their fees for election-related purposes. Respondent, a public-sector union, sent a "Hudson packet" to all nonmembers twice a year detailing their right to object to the use of fees for nonchargeable expenditures; respondent held any disputed fees in escrow until the Hudson process was complete. In separate lawsuits, petitioners alleged that respondent had failed to obtain the affirmative authorization required by § 760 before spending nonmembers' agency fees for electoral purposes. In No. 05-1657, the trial court found a § 760 violation and awarded the State monetary and injunctive relief. In No. 05-1589, another judge held that § 760 provided [***3] a private right of action, certified a class of nonmembers, and stayed the proceedings pending interlocutory appeal. The State Supreme Court held that although a nonmember's failure to object after receiving the Hudson packet did not satisfy § 760's affirmative-authorization requirement, that requirement violated the First Amendment.
Held: It does not violate the First Amendment for a State to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a nonmember before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes. Pp. 5-13.
[REMAINDER OF TEXT OMITTED IN ORDER TO SHORTEN EXAMPLE]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
HN1The State of Washington prohibits labor unions from using the agency-shop fees of a nonmember for election-related purposes unless the nonmember affirmatively consents. We decide whether this restriction, as applied to public-sector labor unions, violates the First Amendment.
I
HN2The National Labor Relations Act leaves States free to regulate [**77] their labor relationships with their public employees. See 49 Stat. 450, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 152(2). The labor laws of many States authorize a union and a government employer to enter into what is commonly known as an agency-shop agreement. This arrangement entitles the union to levy a fee on employees who are not union members but who are nevertheless represented by the union in collective bargaining. See, e.g., Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty [*2377] Ass'n, 500 U.S. 507, 511, 111 S. Ct. 1950, 114 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1991). The primary purpose of such arrangements is to prevent nonmembers from free-riding on the union's efforts, sharing the employment benefits obtained [***8] by the union's collective bargaining without sharing the costs incurred. See, e.g., Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760-764, 81 S. Ct. 1784, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1141 (1961). However, agency-shop arrangements in the public sector raise First Amendment concerns because they force individuals to contribute money to unions as a condition of government employment. Thus, in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 235-236, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977), we held that public-sector unions are constitutionally prohibited from using the fees of objecting nonmembers for ideological purposes that are not germane to the union's collective-bargaining duties. And in Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 302, 304-310, 106 S. Ct. 1066, 89 L. Ed. 2d 232 (1986), we set forth various procedural requirements that public-sector unions collecting agency fees must observe in order to ensure that an objecting nonmember can prevent the use of his fees for impermissible purposes. Neither Hudson nor any of our other cases, however, has held that the First Amendment mandates that a public-sector union obtain affirmative consent before spending a nonmember's agency fees for purposes not chargeable under Abood.
[REMAINDER OF TEXT OMITTED IN ORDER TO SHORTEN EXAMPLE]
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE ALITO join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that the Supreme Court of Washington's decision rested entirely on flawed interpretations of this Court's agency-fee [**84] cases and our decision in BSA v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S. Ct. 2446, 147 L. Ed. 2d 554 (2000). I therefore concur in the Court's judgment, and I join Parts I and II-A and the second paragraph of n. 2 of the Court's opinion. However, I do not join Part II-B, which addresses numerous arguments that respondent Washington Education Association raised for the first time in its briefs before this Court. See, e.g., State ex rel. Wash. State Public Disclosure Comm'n v. Wash. Ed. Assn., 156 Wn. 2d 543, 565, n. 6, 130 P. 3d 352, 362, n. 6, [***27] (2006) (en banc) (noting that one of these arguments was neither raised nor addressed below). I would not address those arguments until the lower courts have been given the opportunity to address them. See, e.g., NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 469-470, 119 S. Ct. 924, 142 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1999).
|
|
