Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris and Finazzo v. Norris, 510 U.S. 1083 (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court granted certiorari to Hawaiian Airlines and Finazzo to review a Hawaii Supreme Court decision regarding whether an employee's state law wrongful discharge claims were preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act. The parties were ordered to submit briefs by specific deadlines in March and April 1994. The case being appealed involved two consolidated cases from the Hawaii Supreme Court reported at 74 Haw. 648 and 74 Haw. 235.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris and Finazzo v. Norris, 510 U.S. 1083 (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views1 page
    The Supreme Court granted certiorari to Hawaiian Airlines and Finazzo to review a Hawaii Supreme Court decision regarding whether an employee's state law wrongful discharge claims were preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act. The parties were ordered to submit briefs by specific deadlines in March and April 1994. The case being appealed involved two consolidated cases from the Hawaii Supreme Court reported at 74 Haw. 648 and 74 Haw. 235.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-01-21 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 510 U.S. 1083 Docket: 92-2058

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court granted certiorari to Hawaiian Airlines and Finazzo to review a Hawaii Supreme Court decision regarding whether an employee's state law wrongful discharge claims were preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act. The parties were ordered to submit briefs by specific deadlines in March and April 1994. The case being appealed involved two consolidated cases from the Hawaii Supreme Court reported at 74 Haw. 648 and 74 Haw. 235.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    10 views1 page

    Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris and Finazzo v. Norris, 510 U.S. 1083 (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court granted certiorari to Hawaiian Airlines and Finazzo to review a Hawaii Supreme Court decision regarding whether an employee's state law wrongful discharge claims were preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act. The parties were ordered to submit briefs by specific deadlines in March and April 1994. The case being appealed involved two consolidated cases from the Hawaii Supreme Court reported at 74 Haw. 648 and 74 Haw. 235.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    510 U.S.

    1083

    Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.


    v.
    Norris; and
    Finazzo et al.
    v.
    Norris.
    No. 92-2058.

    Supreme Court of United States.


    January 21, 1994.
    1

    Appeal from the Sup. Ct. Haw.

    Certiorari granted limited to the following question: "Whether the Hawaii


    Supreme Court erred in concluding that respondent's state law wrongful
    discharge claims were not preempted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C.
    151 et seq." Brief of petitioners is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon
    opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, March 4, 1994. Brief of
    respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or
    before 3 p.m., Friday, April 1, 1994. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the
    Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, April 15,
    1994. This Court's Rule 29 does not apply. Reported below: 74 Haw. 648, 847
    P. 2d 263 (first case); 74 Haw. 235, 842 P. 2d 634 (second case).

    You might also like