Opinion

John Cunningham v. John F. English

  • 269 F.2d 539
  • 106 U.S. App. D.C. 92
  • 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 398
  • 44 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2232
  • 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4811
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed
Jun 10, 1959
Status
Published
Author
Miller
On the bench
Miller, Edgerton, Fahy
Cited by
12 cases

The opinion

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I dissent from the paragraph of the majority opinion which deals with Paragraph 14 of the consent decree. That Paragraph obligates the Teamsters to pay the plaintiffs’ counsel fees, the amount being subject to the approval of the District Court. The amount allowed is now on appeal to us in case No. 14,733 and, I think, should be disposed of there.

Although conceding that the giving of notice concerning Paragraph 14 to the membership of the Teamsters union is not “strictly required” by Rule 23, the majority say notice should nevertheless be given. They suspend this provision of Paragraph 14 “to await the outcome of the notice.” I see no reason to require that notice be given, or to suspend the provision.

Otherwise I concur in Judge FAHY’S opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.