Giant Food Stores, Inc. And Easton Development Co.

12 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]"
Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
461 U.S. 731 (1983) Cited 978 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters
436 U.S. 180 (1978) Cited 554 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA
Hudgens v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
424 U.S. 507 (1976) Cited 543 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"
Longshoremen v. Davis
476 U.S. 380 (1986) Cited 319 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-Finch Co.
404 U.S. 138 (1971) Cited 163 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized
Western Pennsylvania Socialist Workers 1982 Campaign v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
335 Pa. Super. 493 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) Cited 22 times
Finding that to state a claim for a constitutional violation, the complainant must allege sufficient "state action"
Giant Food Markets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
633 F.2d 18 (6th Cir. 1980) Cited 13 times
Observing that generally it will be easier to communicate with a specific number of discrete employees than with potential customers of a large retail store
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc.
730 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1984) Cited 8 times
In N.L.R.B. v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., 730 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1984), this Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that an error urged by respondent may not be considered by this Court if respondent failed to raise the issue before the Board.

Giant Food Stores, Inc. And Easton Development Co.

12 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 that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"

Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized

Finding that to state a claim for a constitutional violation, the complainant must allege sufficient "state action"

Observing that generally it will be easier to communicate with a specific number of discrete employees than with potential customers of a large retail store

In N.L.R.B. v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., 730 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1984), this Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that an error urged by respondent may not be considered by this Court if respondent failed to raise the issue before the Board.