U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1985

Railway Labor Executives' Association v. National Mediation Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 5, 1985 · Bork, Davis, Per Curiam, Wald

757 F.2d 1342; 244 U.S. App. D.C. 347; 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3435; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28742 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Clinton J. Miller, III, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant., Marc Richman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Robert Greenspan, Atty. Dept, of Justice, and Ronald M. Etters, Gen. Counsel, Nat. Mediation Bd., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees., Richard T. Conway and Ralph J. Moore, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on the brief for National Railway Labor Conference, amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. National Mediation Board (District Court, District of Columbia 1991)

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

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

The Railway Labor Executives’ Association appeals the judgment of the district *1343 court denying the Association injunctive relief and granting summary judgment to the National Mediation Board and the General Services Administration. The Association argues that subsections 3 First (s) and 3 First (t) of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (s)-(t), when interpreted in light of the National Mediation Board’s historic practice and other provisions of that Act, require the National Mediation Board to make private offices at government expense available to labor members of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Having carefully considered the briefs and presentations at oral argument, we find that the Railway Labor Act does not impose any such obligation for the reasons set forth in the thorough opinion of-the district court, which is reported at 583 F.Supp. 279 (D.D.C. 1984) (Parker, J.). The judgment of the district court is accordingly-

Affirmed.

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