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

Weber v. Hiatt

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 6, 1970

424 F.2d 1366; 75 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2436 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Paul T. Bailey (argued), Stephen M. Malm, of Bailey, Swink & Haas of Portland, Or., for appellants., Henry R. Camarot (argued), of Sanders, Lively, Camarot & Wiswall, Springfield, Or., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Weber v. Hiatt (9th Cir. 1970)

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM:

This ease concerns the same carpenters’ fund as was before the court in Hiatt (Bernard) v. Schlecht, et al., 400 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1968).

There are minor differences and the Wendell Hiatt position here is slightly better than Bernard’s in the first case. But we do not find the factors significant enough to call for a different result. Most of the arguments presented by the plaintiffs (appellants) here would be equally applicable to the first Hiatt case. Any “affecting” of commerce, in our view, is exceedingly de minimis.

The judgment of the district court dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (the activities not “affecting” commerce) is affirmed.

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