§
Griffin Inns

15 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

  3. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

  4. Rodale Press, Inc. v. F.T.C

    407 F.2d 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Rodale, we overturned the Board for grounding liability in the theory that the advertising in issue misrepresented the contents of the book where petitioner's theory was that the misleading advertisements repeated misleading health tips given in the book.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Drives, Incorporated

    440 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971)   Cited 30 times
    In NLRB v. Drives, Inc., 440 F.2d 354, 364 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 912, 92 S.Ct. 229, 30 L.Ed.2d 185 (1971), the court upheld the Board's ruling that an employer had violated § 8(a)(1) when he distributed a survey shortly before a representation election requesting employees to make specific suggestions for improvements in working conditions and implying that the improvements would come only if the union were defeated.

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.

  7. Santa Fe Drilling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    416 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 25 times

    No. 22923. September 18, 1969. James N. Adler (argued) Roderick M. Hills, of Munger, Tolles, Hills Rickershauser, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Ronald Wm. Egnor (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before CARTER and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge. Hon. William M. Byrne, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Central

  8. 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

  9. United Aircraft Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    440 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1971)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that because the prevailing party could have sought review of an adverse determination through cross-appeal, "the general rule that `determinations adverse to the winning litigant do not have conclusive effect as collateral estoppel' should not be applied."

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Johnson

    322 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 23 times

    No. 15031. September 4, 1963. Solomon I. Hirsh, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Robert Sewell, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief. Thomas S. Calder, Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent, Jack G. Evans, Thomas S. Calder, Dinsmore, Shohl, Barrett, Coates Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert W. Newlon, Warren C. Armstrong, Columbus, Ohio, on the brief. Before WEICK, Circuit

  11. Section 554 - Adjudications

    5 U.S.C. § 554   Cited 1,043 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."