§

Izzo Electric & Sons

01-CA-041706 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 9, 2005)
Izzo Electric & Sons

10 Cited authorities

  1. Pierce v. Underwood

    487 U.S. 552 (1988)   Cited 9,296 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when Congress reenacts a statute without changing its language, and when there is no indication that “Congress thought it was doing anything ... except reenacting and making permanent” the earlier legislation, a court should not give weight to legislative history pertaining to the reenactment

  2. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y

    421 U.S. 240 (1975)   Cited 4,788 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding American Rule governed absent specific statutory authorization for awarding attorney fees to prevailing party

  3. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,306 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  4. Scarborough v. Principi

    541 U.S. 401 (2004)   Cited 861 times
    Holding that a pleading requirement in the Equal Access to Justice Act was not jurisdictional and was therefore curable through subsequent amendment

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  6. S H Riggers Erectors, Inc. v. O.S.H.R.C

    672 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 79 times
    Reviewing legislative history of substantial justification under EAJA

  7. Monark Boat Co. v. N.L.R.B

    708 F.2d 1322 (8th Cir. 1983)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that an application was not filed with the NLRB until it was received, noting that "[t]his interpretation is consistent with cases holding that a document is filed in a court only when it is received, not when it is mailed"

  8. Frey v. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n

    931 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Adopting the elements promulgated by the CFTC

  9. Lion Uniform, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    905 F.2d 120 (6th Cir. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that an agency could properly review an administrative law judge's award of attorney fees de novo, even though the same issue was reviewed by the court of appeals for substantial evidence, because the two types of appeal were designed to accomplish different functions: whereas the administrative appeal was designed to render disposition on behalf of the agency, judicial review was created only to ensure that the agency's decision was rooted in the record

  10. Section 504 - Costs and fees of parties

    5 U.S.C. § 504   Cited 657 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing payment of attorney's fees by the Government when a party prevails in a federal agency adjudication