Eppinger & Russell Co.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,528 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
  2. Board v. Hearst Publications

    322 U.S. 111 (1944)   Cited 792 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")
  3. Allen-Bradley Local v. Board

    315 U.S. 740 (1942)   Cited 299 times
    Upholding state's injunction of mass picketing, threats of bodily injury and property damage
  4. Jerome v. United States

    318 U.S. 101 (1943)   Cited 216 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "in the absence of a plain indication to the contrary, . . . Congress when it enacts a statute is not making the application of the federal act dependent on state law."
  5. Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line

    272 U.S. 605 (1926)   Cited 306 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the BIA preempts any state law that would affect "the design, the construction, and the material of every part of the locomotive and tender and of all appurtenances"
  6. Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen

    322 U.S. 202 (1944)   Cited 105 times
    In Union Brokerage, the Court held that a Minnesota foreign corporation qualification statute could be applied to a North Dakota customhouse brokerage firm, the business of which was related to foreign commerce, without violating the Commerce Clause because the firm had localized its business activity in Minnesota resulting in "a wide variety of dealings with the people in the community."
  7. Charleston Car. R.R. v. Varnville Co.

    237 U.S. 597 (1915)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that a South Carolina law that imposed a $50.00 fine upon carriers that failed to timely report damage was preempted by the Amendment
  8. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. v. Washington

    270 U.S. 87 (1926)   Cited 67 times
    Stating that quarantine laws "cannot . . . be made the cover for discriminations and arbitrary enactments having no reasonable relation to health; . . . ."