Justak Brothers and Co.

38 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
414 U.S. 168 (1973) Cited 501 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 507 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. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
United States v. Carlson
547 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir. 1976) Cited 226 times
Interpreting the requirement under Rule 804(b) that testimony have "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness"
Furtado v. Bishop
604 F.2d 80 (1st Cir. 1979) Cited 135 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1983 is not rendered "deficient," for purposes of § 1988, by the omission of prejudgment interest
International Union
459 F.2d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 118 times
Holding that where a “judge plays a role in suppression of the evidence, the force of [any adverse] inference is dissipated”
United States v. Rich
580 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1978) Cited 72 times
Holding that it is necessary that "there be some evidence suggesting the unreliability of the [challenged] records"
United States v. Medico
557 F.2d 309 (2d Cir. 1977) Cited 68 times
Finding that the "specific requirements" of Federal Rule 803 are satisfied without corroboration, although the trial court may consider the absence of corroboration when deciding if the statement would be better admitted under the federal residual exception
Section 206 - Minimum wage
29 U.S.C. § 206 Cited 9,145 times 103 Legal Analyses
Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”
Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally
18 U.S.C. § 1001 Cited 7,567 times 309 Legal Analyses
Making false statements

Justak Brothers and Co.

38 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 Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

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"

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Interpreting the requirement under Rule 804(b) that testimony have "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness"

Holding that § 1983 is not rendered "deficient," for purposes of § 1988, by the omission of prejudgment interest

Holding that where a “judge plays a role in suppression of the evidence, the force of [any adverse] inference is dissipated”

Holding that it is necessary that "there be some evidence suggesting the unreliability of the [challenged] records"

Finding that the "specific requirements" of Federal Rule 803 are satisfied without corroboration, although the trial court may consider the absence of corroboration when deciding if the statement would be better admitted under the federal residual exception

Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”

Making false statements