# Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · August 22, 1989 · 883 F.2d 132

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7858964

## Case

- **Full name:** YELLOW BUS LINES, INC. v. DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION 639 James F. WOODWARD v. Michael DiPALERMO Maria Triggs, Secretary/Treasurer, Yellow Bus Lines
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** August 22, 1989
- **Citations:** 883 F.2d 132; 280 U.S. App. D.C. 60; 1989 WL 95389
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edwards
- **Judges:** Edwards, Mikva, Wald
- **Cited by:** 46 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7858964

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that members of the enterprise "may not simply be subdivisions, agents, or members of the defendant organization.... Where ... the organization is named as defendant, and the organization associates with its member[s] to form the enterprise `association-in-fact,' the r…
- holding that an accused union organization could not associate with its own members to form a RICO enterprise which was itself and that § 1962(c) immunizes organizations which are merely victims

## Opinion text

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I have nagging doubts about our holding that “the strike and organizational effort were ‘affairs’ of Yellow Bus,” maj. op. at 144, and that, consequently, plaintiff might be able to state a cause of action under section 1962(c) of RICO. This result seems strangely at odds with certain fundamental precepts of labor law and collective bargaining. However, I recognize that this holding finds support in the case law, and that it is not inconsistent with RICO’s broad remedial purpose. I therefore concur, albeit with pause.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7858964. Public record. Not legal advice.