Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Hall et al. v. Cole, 1972 — 409 U.S. 1074 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Hall et al. v. Cole
409 U.S. 1074·Supreme Court of the United States·1972
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion and petition.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 72-630.
Hall et al. v. Cole.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
“1. Whether a federal court in a Section 102 proceeding, reviewing an expulsion of a member by a union, finding his expulsion in violation of Section 101 (a)(2), and directing his restoration to membership, may also award the member’s attorney reasonable counsel fees.
“2. Whether a federal court in a Section 102 proceeding, in restoring an expelled member to membership, may award reasonable counsel fees when it is found that the member sustained no damages by reason of the expulsion; additionally found that the union in good faith believed it had the right to discipline the member for his conduct; further found no motivation of malice by the union in its discipline of the member and does not find that the member by his conduct acted in good faith, but instead concludes the member’s conduct was motivated in part for personal political ambitions.”
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion and petition.