United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters case brief
summary
986 F.2d 15 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, current and former officers of a local teamsters union and their former attorney, sought review after the district court enforced the terms of an agreement settling a civil contempt action brought by the government. The civil contempt action stemmed from charges filed against appellant officers under the terms of a consent decree. Appellants argued that their attorneys did not have the authority to enter into any settlement agreement, that the district court violated their due process rights by denying them an evidentiary hearing, and that the district court displayed bias in its handling of the case.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The order, which enforced the terms of the settlement agreement, was affirmed because appellants' attorney had authority to enter into the agreement, appellants' due process rights were not violated, and the district judge did not display improper bias.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
986 F.2d 15 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants sought review of an order
from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, which enforced the terms of an agreement settling a civil
contempt action brought by the government.CASE FACTS
Appellants, current and former officers of a local teamsters union and their former attorney, sought review after the district court enforced the terms of an agreement settling a civil contempt action brought by the government. The civil contempt action stemmed from charges filed against appellant officers under the terms of a consent decree. Appellants argued that their attorneys did not have the authority to enter into any settlement agreement, that the district court violated their due process rights by denying them an evidentiary hearing, and that the district court displayed bias in its handling of the case.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that the facts of the case demonstrated that the attorney for appellant officers had both actual and apparent authority to settle the contempt charges.
- Further, the district court did not violate appellants' due process rights because there was no need for an evidentiary hearing.
- Finally, the court concluded that the district judge did not display an improper bias. Accordingly, the order was affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The order, which enforced the terms of the settlement agreement, was affirmed because appellants' attorney had authority to enter into the agreement, appellants' due process rights were not violated, and the district judge did not display improper bias.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
No comments:
Post a Comment