§

Cornell University

183 N.L.R.B. 329 (N.L.R.B. 1970)
Cornell University

6 Cited authorities

  1. Maryland v. Wirtz

    392 U.S. 183 (1968)   Cited 357 times
    Holding constitutional the 1961 and 1966 extensions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203, 206, and 207

  2. Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board

    353 U.S. 1 (1957)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that state-law claims are preempted even when the NLRB refuses to assume jurisdiction

  3. Office Employes v. Labor Board

    353 U.S. 313 (1957)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that, when a union acts as an employer, it is deemed an employer within the meaning of the NLRA and subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB

  4. Hotel Employees v. Leedom

    358 U.S. 99 (1958)   Cited 33 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 21. Argued November 10, 1958. Decided November 24, 1958. Dismissal by the National Labor Relations Board of petitioners' representation petition, on the sole ground of the Board's long-established policy of not asserting jurisdiction over the hotel industry as a class, was beyond the Board's power. 101 U.S.App.D.C. 414, 249 F.2d 506, reversed and case remanded. J. W. Brown argued the cause for petitioners.

  5. Etheridge v. United States

    380 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 18 times
    Explaining that the government satisfied its burden to prove that the defendants actually "knew it was unlawful to export [the contraband] from the United States"

  6. Local 1325 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    414 F.2d 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 10 times

    Nos. 21938, 22009. Argued December 19, 1968. Decided July 2, 1969. Mr. George R. Murphy, with whom Mr. S.G. Lippman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, submitted on the brief for petitioner in No. 21,938. Mr. John D. Burgoyne, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for petitioner in No. 22,009 and respondent in