§

Harvey Aluminum, Inc.

156 N.L.R.B. 1353 (N.L.R.B. 1966)
Harvey Aluminum, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,587 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  2. Goldman v. United States

    316 U.S. 129 (1942)   Cited 359 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the warrantless use of a detectaphone

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Capitol Fish Company

    294 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the Housekeeping Statute "cannot be construed to establish authority in the executive departments to determine whether certain papers and records are privileged," nor can it "bar a judicial determination of the question of privilege or a demand for the production of evidence found not privileged"

  4. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Globe Wireless

    193 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1951)   Cited 42 times

    No. 12736. December 27, 1951. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Albert M. Dreyer, Attorneys, NL RB, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Gregory A. Harrison, Richard Ernst, Malcolm T. Dungan and Brobeck, Phleger Harrison, all of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Before HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges and LEMMON, District Judge. HEALY, Circuit Judge. This matter is before us on petition of the National

  5. Vapor Blast Manufacturing Company v. Madden

    280 F.2d 205 (7th Cir. 1960)   Cited 26 times
    In Vapor Blast this court recognized that the district courts possess general jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, citing Leedom v. Kyne, supra.

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jamestown Sterling

    211 F.2d 725 (2d Cir. 1954)   Cited 29 times

    No. 170, Docket 22862. Argued March 9, 1954. Decided April 5, 1954. George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Owsley Vose and Jean Engstrom, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Rogerson Hewes, J. Russell Rogerson, Jamestown, N.Y., for respondent. Before CLARK, MEDINA and HARLAN, Circuit Judges. MEDINA, Circuit Judge. This case involves a more or less typical controversy between employer and employees. In the week of July 7, 1952, following the shutdown of the plant in the Village of Falconer

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Madrid Mfg. Co.

    215 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1954)   Cited 25 times
    In New Madrid the business was transferred to a new employer, which was held liable for the unfair labor practices committed by its predecessor before closing.

  8. Site Oil Company of Missouri v. N.L.R.B

    319 F.2d 86 (8th Cir. 1963)   Cited 7 times

    No. 17130. June 24, 1963. Richard Marx, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners; Murray Steinberg and Charles Kopman, St. Louis, Mo., with him on the brief. Warren M. Davison, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent; Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Allen M. Hutter, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., with him on the brief. Before SANBORN and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENSON, District Judge

  9. Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 5,092 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"