⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

4 opinions for “Donald Maxson Turner”

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986-07-16 · Published · cited 13× · 795 F.2d 1128
795 F.2d 1128 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3130, 105 Lab.Cas. P 11,985 Robert PRICE, Timothy Sullivan, Richard R. Caffary, RobertJ. Eusebio, Donald Raffo, Deloris Blanco, Dianne E. Martin,Arthur P. Vine, James Q. Ryley, Donald L. Brown, Ben J.Edwards, Jr., Alder K. Muttart, Samuel W. Holdridge, DouglasA. Gilleo, Ellen W. Morris, Gustave P. Brucker, III, GilbertE. Dionne, Robert L. Martin, Mrs. Linda L. Orr, T
Wyman v. Roesnerpublic domain
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981-12-30 · Published · cited 32× · 439 A.2d 516; 25 A.L.R. 4th 75; 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 414
439 A.2d 516 (1981) Michael WYMAN, et al., Appellants, v. Jerard W. ROESNER, et al., Appellees. No. 80-472. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued November 18, 1980. Decided December 30, 1981. *518 Rotraud M. Perry, Washington, D. C., for appellants. John A. Kendrick, Washington, D. C., for appellee
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982-06-07 · Published · cited 134× · 680 F.2d 1175; 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 176; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18649
HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority decision is very narrow, holding that the mandatory class action certified by the court below violates the Anti-Injunction Act. It is clear, as the majority recognizes, that the Act would not be contravened by an opt-out class action. On remand, the district court should consider whether such an opt-out class is appropriate. I dissent, non
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986-07-16 · Published · cited 1× · 795 F.2d 1128; 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3130; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27360
GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge: Alleging violations of their first amendment speech and associational and fifth amendment due process rights, as well as a breach by their union of its duty of fair representation, appellants sought relief from paying full dues and fees under a union security clause contained in the collective bargaining agreement between their employer and their union. The district court denied appellants’ re