U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

Seapak, a Division of W. R. Grace Corp. v. Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees, a Division of National Maritime Union, Afl-Cio

Seapak, a Division of W. R. Grace Corp. v. Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees, a Division of National Maritime Union, Afl-Cio
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 29, 1970 · Simpson, Morgan, Ingraham
423 F.2d 1229 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John Bacheller, Jr., John B. Shepard, Atlanta, Ga., John Gayner, III, Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert & Whittle, Brunswick, Ga., and Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant., Stanley B. Gruber, Abraham E. Freedman, New York City, Q. Robert Henry, Brunswick, Ga., for appellee.

Seapak, a Division of W. R. Grace Corp. v. Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees, a Division of National Maritime Union, Afl-Cio

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Seapak filed suit below against Industrial Technical and Professional Employees, a division of the National Maritime Union, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not in violation of its collective bargaining agreement with the union. A breach of contract action pursuant to Title 29, U.S.C. § 185(a), filed by the union on the same date in the Southern District of New York, was transferred to the Southern District of Georgia under Title 28, U.S.C. § 1404(a). Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied Seapak’s motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the union. This appeal followed.

The opinion-order of Chief Judge Lawrence, Seapak, a Division of W. R. Grace Corporation v. Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees, Division of National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, 300 F.Supp. 1197 (1969), sets forth the background of the controversy and ably and adequately explicates the reasons for his decision. We adopt his opinion.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.