Michael Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Company, a Corporation
Michael ZEMONICK, Et Al., Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Et Al., Appellees
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The district court dismissed these hybrid § 301/DFR claims as barred by the six months limitation period established by the Supreme Court of the United States in DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 , 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The plaintiffs appealed to this court, and the majority of the three judge panel hearing the appeal reversed the district court, holding that DelCostello should not have been given retroactive effect in this case, and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381 (4th Cir.1985). One member of the panel dissented, expressing the views (1) that the Supreme Court in DelCostello had already resolved the issue of retroactivity against the plaintiffs and (2) that even if it is appropriate to conduct an independent analysis of retroactivity under Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the Chevron factors require that DelCostello be given retroactive rather than prospective application to these facts.
*1547 A majority of the active judges of this court subsequently voted to give en banc consideration to the issues raised by this appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, it was held that the district court did not err when it applied DelCostello retroactively in this case and that the decision of the court should be affirmed. Since the rationale for the en banc court’s decision is adequately reflected in the dissenting opinion in Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 389-397 (4th Cir.1985), no useful purpose would be served by repeating it here.
AFFIRMED.
Dissent
HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge, with whom Judge DONALD RUSSELL and Judge K.K. HALL
join, dissenting:
I dissent for the reasons set forth in the majority panel opinion in Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 382-89 (4th Cir.1985).
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
796 F.2d 1546 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2788 , 105 Lab.Cas. P 12,056
Michael ZEMONICK, et al., Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Appellees.
No. 84-1353.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 3, 1986. Decided July 28, 1986.
Robert M. Bastress (Barbara J. Fleischauer, West Virginia University College of Law, Morgantown, W. Va., on brief), for appellants.
Robert M. Steptoe, Jr. (C. David Morrison, Steptoe & Johnson), Clarksburg, W. Va., for appellee Consolidation Coal Co.
(Michael J. Aloi, Manchin, Aloi & Carrick, Fairmont, W. Va., on brief), for appellee Dist. 31, United Mine Workers of America.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, ERVIN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge. *
PER CURIAM:
1
The district court dismissed these hybrid Sec. 301/DFR claims as barred by the six months limitation period established by the Supreme Court of the United States in DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 , 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The plaintiffs appealed to this court, and the majority of the three judge panel hearing the appeal reversed the district court, holding that DelCostello should not have been given retroactive effect in this case, and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381 (4th Cir.1985). One member of the panel dissented, expressing the views (1) that the Supreme Court in DelCostello had already resolved the issue of retroactivity against the plaintiffs and (2) that even if it is appropriate to conduct an independent analysis of retroactivity under Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the Chevron factors require that DelCostello be given retroactive rather than prospective application to these facts.
2
A majority of the active judges of this court subsequently voted to give en banc consideration to the issues raised by this appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, it was held that the district court did not err when it applied DelCostello retroactively in this case and that the decision of the court should be affirmed. Since the rationale for the en banc court's decision is adequately reflected in the dissenting opinion in Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 389-397 (4th Cir.1985), no useful purpose would be served by repeating it here.
3
AFFIRMED.
4
HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge, with whom Judge DONALD RUSSELL and Judge K.K. HALL join, dissenting:
5
I dissent for the reasons set forth in the majority panel opinion in Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 382-89 (4th Cir.1985).
* Chief Judge WINTER and Judge Wilkinson did not participate
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Jane C. Triplett v. The Brotherhood Of Railway, Airline And Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express And Station Employees, Local Lodge No. 308
- G.P. Reed v. United Transportation Union Fred A. Hardin K.R. Moore J.L. McKinney
- Juzwin v. Asbestos Corp.
- Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co.
- Stephen Juzwin and Mary Juzwin, His Wife v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Individually and as Successor to Johnson's Company Carey Canadian Mines Amtorg Trading Corporation and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Flintkote Mines, Ltd. Turner & Newall, P.L.C. John Doe Corporation (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Corporations or Companies, Engaged in the Business of Mining, Manufacturing, Distributing or Supplying Finished and Unfinished Asbestos Products and Fibers to ' Employer Gaf/ruberoid) Judy Doe Corporations (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Legal Entities Who Stand in the Shoes of the John Doe Either as Successor in Interest, Alter Ego, or by Other Equitable Doctrine Which Makes Them Responsible for the John Doe Liability)
- Rosa Carter, Administratrix of the Estate of Adrian Miles Carter, Deceased v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee
Most recent
- Stephen Juzwin and Mary Juzwin, His Wife v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Individually and as Successor to Johnson's Company Carey Canadian Mines Amtorg Trading Corporation and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Flintkote Mines, Ltd. Turner & Newall, P.L.C. John Doe Corporation (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Corporations or Companies, Engaged in the Business of Mining, Manufacturing, Distributing or Supplying Finished and Unfinished Asbestos Products and Fibers to ' Employer Gaf/ruberoid) Judy Doe Corporations (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Legal Entities Who Stand in the Shoes of the John Doe Either as Successor in Interest, Alter Ego, or by Other Equitable Doctrine Which Makes Them Responsible for the John Doe Liability)
- Juzwin v. Asbestos Corp.
- prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 11,743 John Howard Grimes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation Celotex Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Fiberboard Corporation, Pabco Industrial Products Division, a Delaware Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., an Ohio Corporation Keene Corporation, a Delaware Corporation H.K. Porter Company, Inc., Thermoid Division, a Delaware Corporation Asbestos Textile Institute, an Unincorporated Trade Association, Doris E. Saunders, Personal Representative, of the Estate of Melvin H. Saunders, and Melvin H. Saunders Clara Faulk Long, Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Norman Long Deceased Eleanor M. Adams, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Norman Long, Deceased Matilene S. Shank, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles G. Shank, Deceased Kathryn C
- Grimes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
- Driscoll v. Boston Edison Co.
- Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.