Hoyt Water Heater Co.

15 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
McGautha v. California
402 U.S. 183 (1971) Cited 812 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made in the mitigation phase of a capital sentencing hearing may be used as evidence of guilt
Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.
380 U.S. 263 (1965) Cited 168 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason
Peoples National Bank of New Jersey v. Stonehill
434 U.S. 858 (1977) Cited 59 times
Affirming dismissal of federal antitrust claims under Bangor Punta
United States v. Trejo-Zambrano
582 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1978) Cited 92 times
Concluding that a defendant did not waive "his right to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony when he executed the incriminating affidavit in support of [another defendant's] severance motion"
United States v. Seamster
568 F.2d 188 (10th Cir. 1978) Cited 54 times
In United States v. Seamster, 568 F.2d 188, 191 (10th Cir. 1978), the Tenth Circuit stated that theft cases arising out of fraudulent and deceitful conduct might, depending on the circumstances of the crime, fall within the ambit of Rule 609(a)(2), and that such crimes should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Howard v. Gonzales
658 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 33 times
In Howard v. Gonzales, 658 F.2d 352 (5th Cir.1981), we held that the crime of theft was not a crime of dishonesty and was not admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) to impeach a witness's credibility.
United States v. Hawley
554 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1977) Cited 34 times
No. 683, Docket 76-1469. Argued January 19, 1977. Decided April 27, 1977. Michael Hartmere, Asst. U.S. Atty., New Haven, Conn. (Peter C. Dorsey, U.S. Atty., New Haven, Conn.), for appellee. Peter Goldberger, Asst. Federal Public Defender, New Haven, Conn. (Andrew B. Bowman, Federal Public Defender, New Haven, Conn.) for appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Before LUMBARD and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and COFFRIN, District Judge. Honorable Albert
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. River Togs, Inc.
382 F.2d 198 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 48 times
In NLRB v. River Togs, Inc. (2d Cir. July 27, 1967) 382 F.2d 198, however, we recognized some of the limitations of the authorization card procedure, calling for scrutiny of the manner of execution of the cards.
United States v. Jones
647 F.2d 696 (6th Cir. 1981) Cited 27 times
Reversing a conviction for conspiracy to possess unregistered destructive devices where the indictment charged conspiracy to construct and use such devices, because the inaccurate description of the target crime created the danger that the defendant would be "misled while preparing his defense"

Hoyt Water Heater Co.

15 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that statements made in the mitigation phase of a capital sentencing hearing may be used as evidence of guilt

Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

Affirming dismissal of federal antitrust claims under Bangor Punta

Concluding that a defendant did not waive "his right to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony when he executed the incriminating affidavit in support of [another defendant's] severance motion"

In Howard v. Gonzales, 658 F.2d 352 (5th Cir.1981), we held that the crime of theft was not a crime of dishonesty and was not admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) to impeach a witness's credibility.

In NLRB v. River Togs, Inc. (2d Cir. July 27, 1967) 382 F.2d 198, however, we recognized some of the limitations of the authorization card procedure, calling for scrutiny of the manner of execution of the cards.

Reversing a conviction for conspiracy to possess unregistered destructive devices where the indictment charged conspiracy to construct and use such devices, because the inaccurate description of the target crime created the danger that the defendant would be "misled while preparing his defense"