Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Lucas v. Leaseway Multi-Transportation Service, Inc.
Lucas v. Leaseway Multi-Transportation Serv., Inc., 929 F.2d 701 (6th Cir. 1991)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1991-04-05
- Topic
- general
929 F.2d 701 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2237 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Michael J. LUCAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEASEWAY MULTI-TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC.; Local 614 of the Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants-Appellees.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lucas v. Leaseway Multi-Transportation Service, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 26 opinions
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Michael J. LUCAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEASEWAY MULTI-TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC.; Local 614 of
the Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-1681.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 5, 1991.
E.D.Mich., 89-71233, Gadola, J.
E.D.Mich.
AFFIRMED.
Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. and RALPH GUY, Circuit Judges; JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
This cause having come on to be heard upon the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties, and upon due consideration thereof,
The court finds that no prejudicial error intervened in the judgment and proceedings in the district court, and it is therefore ORDERED that said judgment be and it hereby is affirmed.