O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue LLP's attorneys have been involved in many important cases. A selection of these cases include . . .
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000): Supreme Court decision reversing lower court's denial of habeas corpus petition, finding that inmate had been denied effective representation of counsel and lower court's refusal to set aside death penalty was based upon erroneous construction of applicable law.
United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus. of the Untied States & Canada, AFL-CIO v. Local 334, 452 U.S. 615 (1981): Supreme Court decision holding that a local union's lawsuit against its international union alleging a violation of the international constitution is a suit for a breach of contract between labor organizations under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act.
Trustees of the Nat'l Elevator Industry Pension, Health Benefit & Educ. Funds v. Lutyk, 332 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2003): Appellate court decision affirming lower court's determination that the corporate veil should be pierced to reach sole shareholder for unpaid fringe benefit contributions of corporation owed to benefit funds established by a collective bargaining agreement.
Lee v. Vance Executive Protection, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1849 (4th Cir. 2001): Appellate court decision reversing lower court's dismissal of Fair Labor Standards Act claim, finding that employer violated the FLSA by paying a "daily rate" to security guards, who were entitled to unpaid overtime.
Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York, Inc. v. Local Union No. 2, 841 F.2d 461 (2d Cir. 1988): Appellate court decision affirming lower court's decision that vacated two arbitration awards involving jurisdiction of two local unions on the grounds that trade line jurisidction was not arbitrable under the international union's constitution.
Chao v. Local 442, United Ass'n of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus., 203 F. Supp.2d 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2002): District court decision granting summary judgment against Secretary of Labor in a case brought under Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, finding that union's interpretation of bylaw governing electioneering was not patently unreasonable and rejecting use of NLRB's "laboratory conditions" in elections of union officers.
The descriptions of resolutions of the above matters should in no way be taken as an indication of future results, as each case depends upon its facts and each litigation is unique.
4748 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016
325 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 629-4996 (fax)
Three Park Place
Annapolis, MD 21401