§
Local 926

14 Cited authorities

  1. Diaz v. United States

    223 U.S. 442 (1912)   Cited 854 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that double jeopardy was not implicated when a defendant was tried for assault, then subsequently tried for murder after the victim of the assault passed away a few weeks later

  2. Electrical Workers v. Labor Board

    341 U.S. 694 (1951)   Cited 247 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech

  3. Carpenters Union v. Labor Board

    341 U.S. 707 (1951)   Cited 89 times
    In Carpenters Union v. Labor Board, 341 U.S. 707, 71 S.Ct. 966, 971, supra, the Supreme Court said: "The use of such pressure on this renovation project was merely a sample of what might be repeated elsewhere if not prohibited. The underlying dispute between petitioners and Watson's has not been shown to have been resolved."

  4. International Bhd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    181 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 89 times

    No. 102, Docket 21365. Argued January 4, 1950. Decided February 24, 1950. S.A. Syme, White Plains, N.Y., L. Sherman, P.R. Collins, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. A.N. Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Robert N. Denham, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Albert M. Dreyer, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., James V. Altieri, New York City, for respondent. Louis Sherman, Washington, D.C., for Brotherhood of Elect

  5. National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Gen. Drivers, Etc

    225 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1955)   Cited 43 times

    No. 15305. August 2, 1955. Miss Rosanna A. Blake, Atty., N.L.R.B., Silver Springs, Md., Owsley Vose, Asso. Ch. Enf. Br., David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Cnsl., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Cnsl., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Samuel M. Singer, Attorneys, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Chris Dixie, Houston, Tex., Mullinax Wells, Dallas, Tex., Dixie, Ryan Schulman, Houston, Tex., for respondents. Before RIVES, Circuit Judge, and DAWKINS and DE VANE, District Judges. RIVES, Circuit Judge

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Assoc. Musicians

    226 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1955)   Cited 39 times

    No. 35, Docket 23550. Argued October 5, 1955. Decided November 3, 1955. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and William J. Avrutis, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. David I. Ashe, New York City (Ashe Rifkin, New York City, on the brief), for respondents. Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges. CLARK,

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Serv. Trade C

    191 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 44 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Service Trade Chauffeurs, etc., supra, it was said: "We take this to mean that a union may lawfully inflict harm on a neutral employer, without violating § 8 (b) (4), so long as the harm is merely incidental to a traditionally lawful primary strike, conducted at the place where the primary employer does business."

  8. National Labor Relations Bd. v. L. Un. No. 55

    218 F.2d 226 (10th Cir. 1954)   Cited 29 times
    Recognizing amendments made closed-shop agreements illegal

  9. National Lab. R. Bd. v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters

    212 F.2d 216 (7th Cir. 1954)   Cited 28 times

    No. 11045. April 21, 1954. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Alvin Lieberman, Atty., N.L.R.B., New York City, for petitioner. Ralph B. Gregg, Edward J. Fillenwarth, Indianapolis, Ind., Gregg, Fillion, Fillenwarth Hughes, Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel, for respondent. Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and SWAIM and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges. MAJOR, Chief Judge. This case

  10. Sales Drivers, Etc. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    229 F.2d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1955)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that "the fact of concerted activity at a common situs where one not common was available" does not itself establish a secondary boycott violation