§
Ben Hur Produce

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey

    233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 133 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company

    237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 40 times

    No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company

    293 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 23 times
    In Atlanta Coca-Cola, for example, the court was concerned with the General Counsel's failure to produce evidence of discriminatory intent as to each of the individual employees, rather than with the placement of the burden of persuasion. See, e. g., 293 F.2d at 309 ("This is not a case where conflicting inferences of equal weight may be drawn from the record.")

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dant

    207 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 9 times

    No. 12985. September 15, 1953. George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Asst. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Norton J. Come, Morris A. Solomon, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Raymond S. Smathurst, Washington, D.C., J.P. Stirling, Roscoe Watts, John T. Casey, Portland, Or., for appellee. Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges. ORR, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, hereafter the Board, requests enforcement

  6. Section 1220 - Statement of party opponent

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1220   Cited 1,031 times
    Peering 1966

  7. Section 1221 - Statement adopted by words or conduct

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1221   Cited 380 times

    Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth. Ca. Evid. Code § 1221 Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.