DEFORD ET AL.

v.

SOO LINE RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Davies v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 971 F.2d 463 (10th Cir. 1992)
  …least four circuits have looked to LMRA cases such as Lingle to determine whether a claim involved CBA interpretation for purposes of RLA preemption. See Deford v. Soo Line R.R., 867 F. 2d 1080, 1087 (8th Cir.) (distinguishing Lingle), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 927, 109 S.Ct. 3265, 106 L.Ed.2d 610 (1989); Beard v. Carrollton R.R., 893 F. 2d 117, 122 (6th Cir.1989) (same); McCall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 844 F. 2d 294, 304 (6th Cir.) (Or [*467] der on Rehearing) (same), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 879, 109 S.Ct. 19…
• Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 959 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1992)
  …Eastern Airlines, Inc., 574 F. 2d 29, 31-32 (1st Cir.1978). “A minor dispute is one involving the interpretation or application of an existing collective bargaining agreement.” Deford v. Soo Line R.R., 867 F. 2d 1080, 1085 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 927, 109 S.Ct. 3265, 106 L.Ed.2d 610 (1989). On appeal, we review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and conclusion that the Calverts’ claims arise from a minor dispute under the RLA. Brotherhood Ry. Car [*700] men v. Missouri Pac.…
• Brotherhood Railway Carmen OF THE United States AND Canada v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 944 F.2d 1422 (8th Cir. 1991)
  …rence claim. Because the Carmen’s state law claims require interpretation of the agreements, they are preempted by the “extraordinary” preemptive force of the Railway Labor Act. Deford v. Soo Line R.R., 867 F. 2d 1080, 1085 (8th Cir.); cert. denied, 492 U.S. 927, 109 S.Ct. 3265, 106 L.Ed.2d 610 (1989). The union’s tortious interference claims also must fail because the service of section 6 notices, divorced from proof of any past agreements, cannot be said to create a “reasonable expectancy” of a prospecti…