Logourl black
From our private database of 12,700+ case briefs...

United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
986 F.2d 15 (1993)


Facts

In June 1988, the United States of America (Government) (plaintiff) sued the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the General Executive Board, the board members, the Commission of La Cosa Nostra, and members of La Cosa Nostra (IBT) (defendants) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The case was settled by consent decree. Several Local 493 officers were brought up on disciplinary charges and accepted an agreement (Agreement) to settle. The Government filed contempt charges when the officers failed to abide by the Agreement. The officers entered the settlement (Settlement) at issue here on May 2, 1991. The officers’ attorneys told the court that they were authorized to accept the Settlement on the officers’ behalf. The officers performed two requirements under the Agreement before the officers’ attorney told the Government that the officers wanted to resign. The Government said it would accept the resignations under certain conditions, including the firing of the officers’ attorney. The Government told the officers that if those conditions were not acceptable, it would enforce the Agreement. The Government and the officers’ new attorney came to a new settlement, but the officers refused to sign. The Government asked for an order enforcing the original Settlement, which was granted in October 1992. The officers and their first attorney appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, claiming the attorney was not authorized to agree to the Settlement and the court’s failure to hear evidence on that issue was a denial of due process.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Oakes, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 120,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 12,700 briefs, keyed to 172 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.