Albritton Engineering Corp.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

    313 U.S. 177 (1941)   Cited 871 times
    Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
  2. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
  3. Morgan v. United States

    304 U.S. 1 (1938)   Cited 634 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary"
  4. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
  5. Labor Board v. Mackay Co.

    304 U.S. 333 (1938)   Cited 535 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
  6. Billings v. United States

    232 U.S. 261 (1914)   Cited 202 times
    Upholding a tax on foreign built yachts
  7. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp.

    282 U.S. 902 (1931)   Cited 120 times
    Discussing scenes-a-faire doctrine
  8. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS v. LYLES LANG CONS

    349 U.S. 956 (1955)   Cited 38 times
    Treating AEC management contractor as "independent contractor" not "agent of the government" in denying motion of the United States to intervene as a party
  9. Fay v. Douds

    172 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1949)   Cited 139 times
    Suggesting that district court jurisdiction is appropriate whenever a party in a labor dispute asserts non-frivolous claims of a constitutional violation
  10. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS v. LYLES LANG CONST

    219 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1955)   Cited 56 times
    In E.I. DuPont DeNemours Co. v. Lyles Lang Const. Co., 219 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1955), a disputes clause in a private subcontract under a government contract was held inapplicable to a dispute of law.