In the case of DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al., 1982, the US Supreme Court had to determine an appropriate statute of limitations for lawsuits under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The plaintiffs were former employees who alleged that their employer and union violated collective bargaining agreements. Lower courts dismissed their claims as untimely based on state statutes. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was decided that a six-month limitation period from Section 10(b) of National Labor Relations Act should apply instead due to its federal nature and relevance in labor disputes involving both employers and unions. This decision marked a significant shift in how time limits are determined for such cases, favoring uniformity at a national level over varying state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to apply a federal statute of limitations rather than state law was inappropriate and inconsistent with precedent. He contended that there was no compelling reason to deviate from established practice, which typically defers to state laws in labor disputes involving private parties unless they are inadequate or unsatisfactory. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential confusion and inconsistency resulting from applying different statutes of limitations depending on whether a case is brought under Section 301(a) or some other provision of federal labor law. Finally, Justice Stevens criticized the majority for failing to provide clear guidance on when it would be appropriate to borrow federal statutes of limitation in future cases.