§

Local 259, United Automobile, Aerospace And Agricultural Implement Workers Of America(Atherton Cadillac, Inc )

276 N.L.R.B. 276 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Local 259, United Automobile, Aerospace And Agricultural Implement Workers Of America(Atherton Cadillac, Inc )

14 Cited authorities

  1. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 45,039 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  2. Morgan v. United States

    304 U.S. 1 (1938)   Cited 634 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary"

  3. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Comm'n

    301 U.S. 292 (1937)   Cited 532 times
    Holding that a telephone company did not waive its right to have the value of its property determined upon evidence presented in open proceedings by not opposing consolidation of two proceedings, and noting that "[w]e do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights"

  4. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 315 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

  5. 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”

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Selwyn Shoe Manufacturing Corp.

    428 F.2d 217 (8th Cir. 1970)   Cited 23 times
    In NLRB v. Selwyn Shoe Manufacturing Corp., 428 F.2d 217 (8th Cir. 1970), the court's holding was that there was not substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of §§ 8(a)(3) and (1) violations.

  7. Altemose Construction Company v. N.L.R.B

    514 F.2d 8 (3d Cir. 1975)   Cited 11 times
    In Altemose our Court reversed the Board order under review and remanded the case for reconsideration of the credibility of witnesses and of certain "objective factors" in light of "discrepancies in the [credited] testimony," the "improbability" of certain testimony, the use of improper inferences, and the peculiar history of the dispute.

  8. North American Rockwell Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    389 F.2d 866 (10th Cir. 1968)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 9428. February 14, 1968. Sharp Whitmore and Stephen E. Tallent, Los Angeles, Cal. (Jan Vetter, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel, was with them on the brief), for petitioner. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman and Vivian Asplund, Attys., National Labor Relations, Board, for respondent. Before HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges, and DOYLE, District Judge. WILLIAM E. DOYLE, District Judge. The case is before the

  9. Nissen Foods (Usa) Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    540 F. Supp. 584 (E.D. Pa. 1982)   Cited 3 times
    Declining to find a waiver of executive privilege when "general statements" of a "limited nature" regarding privileged documents were disclosed

  10. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Ford Motor Co.

    114 F.2d 905 (6th Cir. 1940)   Cited 52 times

    No. 8399. October 8, 1940. As Amended December 5, 1940. Petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order issued under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., against the Ford Motor Company, wherein the Ford Motor Company cross-petitioned to review and set aside the order pursuant to National Labor Relations Act, § 10(f), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(f). Judgment in accordance with opinion