concluding that “the dilatory action of the union and its officers” in expelling an individual from the union following his resolutions unsuccessfully condemning union management’s alleged undemocratic and short sighted policies constituted bad faith (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- concluding that “the dilatory action of the union and its officers” in expelling an individual from the union following his resolutions unsuccessfully condemning union management’s alleged undemocratic and short sighted policies constituted bad faith (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
- holding that a union member's vindication of his right to free speech in the face of a restrictive union rule conferred benefits on the union and its members and was thus entitled to an award of attorneys' fees from the union treasury
- holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members, and reimbursing the attorneys' fees from the union treasury, such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation
- stating in a case involving the common fund exception that "[i]t is clear ... that 'bad faith' may be found, not only in the actions that led to the lawsuit, but also in the conduct of the litigation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Rodonich v. Senyshyn, 52 F.3d 28 (1995)
For these reasons, we disagree with the district court’s assessment of Hall as being restricted to “the concrete benefits that flow from an award of equitable relief alone or in combination with damages.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Company, 393 F. Supp. 1165 (1975)
Plaintiff relies on Hall v. Cole, (1973) 412 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702, but the case is inapposite.
The opinion
*16 Mr. Justice White,
with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins, dissenting.
I would need a far clearer signal from Congress than we have here to permit awarding attorneys’ fees in member-union litigation, which so often involves private feuding having no general significance. The award of fees in the occasionally successful and meritorious case will not be worth the litigation the Court’s decision will invite and foster.