§

Lenscraft Optical Corp.

128 N.L.R.B. 807 (N.L.R.B. 1960)
Lenscraft Optical Corp.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Jencks v. United States

    353 U.S. 657 (1957)   Cited 1,103 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants are entitled to obtain the prior statements of persons to government agents when those persons are to testify against the defendants at trial

  2. Alford v. United States

    282 U.S. 687 (1931)   Cited 1,158 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial court "may exercise a reasonable judgment in determining when subject [on cross-examination] is exhausted" and has "a duty to protect [the witness] from questions which go beyond the bounds of proper cross-examination merely to harass, annoy or humiliate"

  3. Virginia Electric Co. v. Board

    319 U.S. 533 (1943)   Cited 326 times
    Stating that the purpose of the Act is to encourage and protect "full freedom of association for workers"

  4. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  5. Labor Board v. Electric Cleaner Co.

    315 U.S. 685 (1942)   Cited 39 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 588. Argued March 5, 1942. Decided March 30, 1942. 1. The finding of the National Labor Relations Board that, by a supplementary oral contract between an employer and a labor union, it was agreed only that new employees would be required to join the union, was supported by substantial evidence. P. 690. 2. The conclusion of the Board that the closed-shop agreement between the employer and a labor union in this case was not valid

  6. Harrison Sheet Steel v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    194 F.2d 407 (7th Cir. 1952)   Cited 15 times
    In Harrison Sheet Steel Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 407, the company recognized a union which had just lost an election, and obviously did not represent a majority of the employees, when there were two other unions trying to organize the plant.

  7. Sturm v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co.

    63 N.Y. 77 (N.Y. 1875)   Cited 22 times

    Argued September 28, 1875 Decided November 9, 1875 Samuel Hand for the appellant. John E. Parsons for the respondent. FOLGER,[fn*] J. [fn*] The omitted portions of the opinion dispose of questions peculiar to the case, and not of general importance. * * * * * * * The questions presented by the two motions for a nonsuit are three. The first is, that the plaintiff had not shown that he was entitled to the property or the possession thereof, and that it clearly appeared that the interest in the property