3 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Commerce Co.
328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 12 timesNo. 20477. March 3, 1964. Rehearing Denied March 30, 1964. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Solomon I. Hirsh, Paula Omansky, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles R. Vickery, Jr., Liddell, Austin, Dawson Sapp, Houston, Tex., Harley W. McConnell, Houston, Tex., for respondent. Before HUTCHESON and GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge. HUTCHESON, Circuit
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co.
120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941) Cited 15 timesNo. 4770. June 10, 1941. On Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order against the Entwistle Manufacturing Company. Order modified and enforced. Walter B. Wilbur, of Washington, D.C., Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Sylvester Garrett, and William Stix, all of Washington, D.C., Attys