Leyendecker Paving, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,674 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
United States v. Augenblick
393 U.S. 348 (1969) Cited 430 times
Holding that the failure to produce rough notes which were not verbatim statements and therefore did not fall within Jencks Act, and tapes which were Jencks Act materials, did not present a case that was a "worthy candidate for consideration at the constitutional level"
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dinion Coil Co.
201 F.2d 484 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 96 times
Observing that "methods of evaluating the credibility of oral testimony do not lend themselves to formulations in terms of rules"
Harvey Aluminum
335 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1964) Cited 44 times
In Harvey Aluminum, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a complaint charging that the petitioners engaged in unfair labor practice by maintaining surveillance of union activities of employees of Harvey Aluminum, Inc. ("Harvey") and General Engineering, Inc. ("General").
N.L.R.B. v. SEINE LINE FISHERMEN'S UN
374 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1967) Cited 39 times
Responding party not prejudiced when allowed to question witnesses regarding prior statements taken by the General Counsel or by counsel for charging party
Augenblick v. United States
180 Ct. Cl. 131 (Fed. Cir. 1967) Cited 32 times
In Augenblick v. United States, 377 F.2d 586, 180 Ct.Cl. 131 (1967), the Court of Claims was presented with a demand for back pay by a former serviceman.
N.L.R.B. v. Borden Company
392 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1968) Cited 13 times
No. 24294. March 4, 1968. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Robert M. Lieber, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., NLRB, for petitioner. C. Dale Stout, Kullman Lang, New Orleans, La., for respondent. Before JONES, WISDOM and DYER, Circuit Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge: February 5, 1965, two employees of The Borden Company began a low key union drive to obtain union representation of the Company's employees
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera
179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950) Cited 24 times
No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease

Leyendecker Paving, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that the failure to produce rough notes which were not verbatim statements and therefore did not fall within Jencks Act, and tapes which were Jencks Act materials, did not present a case that was a "worthy candidate for consideration at the constitutional level"

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Observing that "methods of evaluating the credibility of oral testimony do not lend themselves to formulations in terms of rules"

In Harvey Aluminum, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a complaint charging that the petitioners engaged in unfair labor practice by maintaining surveillance of union activities of employees of Harvey Aluminum, Inc. ("Harvey") and General Engineering, Inc. ("General").

Responding party not prejudiced when allowed to question witnesses regarding prior statements taken by the General Counsel or by counsel for charging party

In Augenblick v. United States, 377 F.2d 586, 180 Ct.Cl. 131 (1967), the Court of Claims was presented with a demand for back pay by a former serviceman.