awarding attorney fees to union members who sought to correct abuses of the democratic process in their union, because “[t]he preservation of the democratic process in the functioning of unions is a matter of primary concern, not only to union members but to the public as well”
How later courts described this case
- awarding attorney fees to union members who sought to correct abuses of the democratic process in their union, because “[t]he preservation of the democratic process in the functioning of unions is a matter of primary concern, not only to union members but to the public as well”
- rejecting the defendants’ suggestion that no fees should be awarded because the plaintiffs’ litigation had pro- duced no pecuniary benefit
- awarding attorney fees, under court’s inherent equitable authority, because the plaintiffs action vindicated interest of union members and public in internal union democracy
- suit against a union to require fair and democratic union elections
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SLOAN, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree that attorney’s fees should be allowed in this case. My dissent in Adair v. McAtee, 236 Or 391, 396 , 388 P2d 750 , stated the reasons why fees should be allowed in other appropriate oases as well.