J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., Inc.

25 Cited authorities

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”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc.
311 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 1963) Cited 71 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.
Nabors v. N.L.R.B
323 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1963) Cited 59 times
Holding that NLRB acts in public capacity and “[t]he fact that these proceedings operate to confer an incidental benefit on private persons does not detract from this public purpose”
Local 833, Uaw-Afl-Cio, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962) Cited 40 times
Nos. 15961, 16031, 16182. Argued September 11, 1961. Decided January 26, 1962. Certiorari Denied June 4, 1962. See 82 S.Ct. 1258. Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Mr. Louis H. Pollak, New Haven, Conn., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. John Silard, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Local 833, UAW-AFL-CIO, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, petitioner
N.L.R.B. v. Ozark Hardwood Company
282 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1960) Cited 35 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Ozark Hardwood Co., 282 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1960), the 8th Circuit also indicated that courts of appeals could make successorship determinations.
Snow v. N.L.R.B
308 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1962) Cited 30 times
In Snow, both the employer and the Union chose the clergyman who ran the check and he compared signatures, not just names.

J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., Inc.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.

Holding that NLRB acts in public capacity and “[t]he fact that these proceedings operate to confer an incidental benefit on private persons does not detract from this public purpose”

In N.L.R.B. v. Ozark Hardwood Co., 282 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1960), the 8th Circuit also indicated that courts of appeals could make successorship determinations.

In Snow, both the employer and the Union chose the clergyman who ran the check and he compared signatures, not just names.