Clark & Hinojosa

23 Cited authorities

San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,558 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
421 U.S. 773 (1975) Cited 807 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a minimum fee schedule enforced by the Virginia state bar did not fall within the Parker exception because the fee schedule was not mandated by the Virginia Supreme Court and thus it could not "fairly be said that the State of Virginia through its Supreme Court Rules required the anticompetitive activities"
Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass
404 U.S. 157 (1971) Cited 630 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,499 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Board v. Hearst Publications
322 U.S. 111 (1944) Cited 791 times 8 Legal Analyses
Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")
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”
Labor Board v. Fainblatt
306 U.S. 601 (1939) Cited 281 times
Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scrivener
405 U.S. 117 (1972) Cited 83 times
Holding that protection from retaliation for "fil[ing] charges or giv[ing] testimony" under the National Labor Relations Act extends to an employee who gave a written sworn statement to an NLRB examiner
U.S. v. Women's Sportswear Assn
336 U.S. 460 (1949) Cited 149 times 1 Legal Analyses
In United States v. Women's Sportswear Mfrs. Ass'n, 336 U.S. 460, 464, 69 S.Ct. 714, 93 L.Ed. 805 (1949), the nexus of interstate commerce necessary to success on the merits had been found insufficient after a trial.
Polish Alliance v. Labor Board
322 U.S. 643 (1944) Cited 138 times
In Polish National Alliance v. NLRB, 322 U.S. 643, 64 S.Ct. 1196, 88 L.Ed. 1509 (1944), the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act applied to a fraternal organization providing death, disability and accident benefits to its members and their beneficiaries.

Clark & Hinojosa

23 Cited authorities

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power

Holding that protection from retaliation for "fil[ing] charges or giv[ing] testimony" under the National Labor Relations Act extends to an employee who gave a written sworn statement to an NLRB examiner

In United States v. Women's Sportswear Mfrs. Ass'n, 336 U.S. 460, 464, 69 S.Ct. 714, 93 L.Ed. 805 (1949), the nexus of interstate commerce necessary to success on the merits had been found insufficient after a trial.

In Polish National Alliance v. NLRB, 322 U.S. 643, 64 S.Ct. 1196, 88 L.Ed. 1509 (1944), the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act applied to a fraternal organization providing death, disability and accident benefits to its members and their beneficiaries.