Originally Posted by
76drvr
SPELLACY II v. AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL III
that ends with this:
"Because we conclude that Judge Weinstein correctly granted ALPA's motion for judgment as a matter of law, we need not address either ALPA's contention that Judge Weinstein erred in instructing the jury or the pilots' argument that the grant of a new trial was improper.
CONCLUSION
We have considered all the arguments raised by appellants and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge."
SPELLACY II v. AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL III, No.
Perhaps someone can explain it. Was this the final judgment? If so, did ALPA ultimately prevail even though a jury had found ALPA guilty?
I googled as well and found the court documents but nothing that
clearly discussed what the final... final... final word was.
But while doing it I also found this two year old post from the DPA Thread:
Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Hey Mister Fudd,
How do you account for the legal settlements ALPA national has paid to settle litigation brought on behalf of, and in the defense of, legacy airline pilots?
At Delta our larger ones have been Miller v. ALPA and Duke / Spellacy (which forced us to mortgage the ALPA HQ). United guys just got us tagged for $44 million.
The national employees are union members who live and work in a very expensive area. Do you suggest we break their union contract?
... and when it comes to a "conflict of interest" if we always win, is it a problem? When has ALPA's President refused to sign a Delta contract?
Just a few questions to help clarify that DPA has a plan ... .
So maybe Bar knows.