Alvini v. Colonial School Dist., No. 13
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Writing for the Court | Before VEASEY; HOLLAND |
| Citation | 645 A.2d 568 |
| Parties | 93 Ed. Law Rep. 1283 Elaine ALVINI, Peggy A. Beers, Blair Benson, Eleanor S. Bentz, Susan Cannon, Delores W. Chappell, Beverly Clark, Hilda A. Craig, Gloria J. Diggs, June E. Dixon, Emma L. Fowler, Elizabeth Grier, Lorraine E. Hand, Joyce Hatfield, Rose M. Henderson, Connie Hicks, Margaret A. Hinson, Joanne M. Hopkins, Shirley A. Hurd, Roberta Krieg, Carol A. Lopez, Mary Rae Mahoney, Laura H. Mathis, Elvinia Moody, Mary M. Pollard, Janet M. Reed, Cathy L. Reese, Marjorie Rodriguez, Irene Schorah, Gladys Skrzec, Lubomira Szeremeta, Patricia A. Till, Doris Wilmer, Rosalie Wilson and Catherine J. Zimmerman, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Colonial Paraprofessional Association and Colonial Food Service Workers Association, Defendants Below, Appellees. Public Employment Relations Board, Defendant Agency Below, Appellee. . Submitted: |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 13,1994 |
Page 568
Bentz, Susan Cannon, Delores W. Chappell, Beverly Clark,
Hilda A. Craig, Gloria J. Diggs, June E. Dixon, Emma L.
Fowler, Elizabeth Grier, Lorraine E. Hand, Joyce Hatfield,
Rose M. Henderson, Connie Hicks, Margaret A. Hinson, Joanne
M. Hopkins, Shirley A. Hurd, Roberta Krieg, Carol A. Lopez,
Mary Rae Mahoney, Laura H. Mathis, Elvinia Moody, Mary M.
Pollard, Janet M. Reed, Cathy L. Reese, Marjorie Rodriguez,
Irene Schorah, Gladys Skrzec, Lubomira Szeremeta, Patricia
A. Till, Doris Wilmer, Rosalie Wilson and Catherine J.
Zimmerman, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants,
v.
COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Colonial Paraprofessional
Association and Colonial Food Service Workers
Association, Defendants Below, Appellees.
Public Employment Relations Board, Defendant Agency Below, Appellee.
Decided: May 18, 1994.
AFFIRMED.
Before VEASEY, C.J., and HOLLAND and HARTNETT, JJ.
HOLLAND, Justice.
This 18th day of May, 1994, the Court having considered this matter on the briefs filed by the parties, and having concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery in its well-reasoned opinion dated December 7, 1993.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery be, and the same hereby is,
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 practice notes
-
Nashua Teachers Union v. Nashua School Dist., No. 96-263
...provision in public sector CBA as constitutional pursuant to Abood despite lack of explicit state statute authorizing agency fees), aff'd, 645 A.2d 568 (Del.1994). We interpret Abood also to permit agency fees in the public sector where the legislature has implicitly authorized them by stat......
-
Nashua Teachers Union v. Nashua Sch. Dist., 96-263.
...in public sector CBA as constitutional pursuant to Abood despite lack of explicit state statute authorizing agency fees), aff'd , 645 A.2d 568 (Del.1994). We interpret Abood also to permit agency fees in the public sector where the legislature has implicitly authorized them by statute as pa......
2 cases
-
Nashua Teachers Union v. Nashua School Dist., No. 96-263
...provision in public sector CBA as constitutional pursuant to Abood despite lack of explicit state statute authorizing agency fees), aff'd, 645 A.2d 568 (Del.1994). We interpret Abood also to permit agency fees in the public sector where the legislature has implicitly authorized them by stat......
-
Nashua Teachers Union v. Nashua Sch. Dist., 96-263.
...in public sector CBA as constitutional pursuant to Abood despite lack of explicit state statute authorizing agency fees), aff'd , 645 A.2d 568 (Del.1994). We interpret Abood also to permit agency fees in the public sector where the legislature has implicitly authorized them by statute as pa......