"We conclude that the term 'complaining party' as used in Weinstein's element (2) refers to the appellant in this court."
How later courts described this case
- "We conclude that the term 'complaining party' as used in Weinstein's element (2) refers to the appellant in this court."
- the important interests of the government in creating section 401(g) were unrelated to the suppression of speech and therefore section 401(g) is constitutional
- "It is unlikely under these circumstances that this court could hear and decide an appeal before any re-run election."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WEICK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The District Court set aside the December 1977 election in which Harold Leu was elected president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 20, and ordered a new election *654 to be conducted under the supervision of the Secretary. The District Court held the election was void, finding that Leu received certain campaign contributions barred by LMRDA § 401(g). 29 U.S.C. § 481 (g).
The trouble is that in the suit filed by the Secretary to set aside the election, he did not make Harold Leu, the winner of the election, a party in the lawsuit. In my opinion, this violated Leu’s right to due process of law guaranteed to him by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Leu was not bound by the judgment of the District Court in an action which he was not made a party defendant.