Regal Knitwear Co. v. Board

Holding "successors and assigns" are liable for contempt if they are properly within the scope of the injunction under Rule 65(d)

McLean Trucking Co. v. U.S.

In McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67 (1944), we observed that an agency charged with promoting the "public interest" in a particular substantive area may not simply "ignore" the policies underlying other federal statutes.

Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

In N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."

Union Starch Ref. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

In Union Starch, the employees had tendered dues and an initiation fee but were denied membership in the union for refusal to file union application forms, attend a union meeting or take the union oath.

Bradley Lumber Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

In Bradley v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, 84 F.2d at page 100, we rejected the contention: "The new power to make a declaratory decree does not authorize a court of equity by declaration to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings at a point where it would not, under settled principles, have interfered with or stopped them under its power to enjoin;" and the Supreme Court reviewed the cases defining the nature and scope of the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act and its application to judicial intervention in the administrative process and announced a like conclusion.

Consumers Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

In Consumers Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38, 41, we considered and rejected the argument that no immediate and direct effect upon interstate commerce follows a labor controversy which curtails the employer's activity when its products are sold to an intervening private agency over whom the employer has no authority or control. It was said in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 214, 83 L. Ed. 126, "it is the effect upon interstate or foreign commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion."

National Labor Rel. Board v. Hopwood Retinning

In NLRB v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 104 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1939), the employer had locked out and discharged employees because of their union activity.

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hopwood R. Co.

In National Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 98 F.2d 97, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based its conclusion that a company engaged in repairing milk and ice cream containers was engaged in "interstate commerce" within the meaning of the Act upon the fact that 23% of the containers on which work was to be done were transported in the company's truck from and to states other than the state where the work was performed.

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Suburban Lumber Co.

In National Labor Relations Board v. Suburban Lumber Co., 3 Cir., 121 F.2d 829 (1941), the de minimis doctrine was urged to defeat the Board's jurisdiction.

McKenna v. Fielding