§
LOGMET, LLC

10 Cited authorities

  1. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,587 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.

    437 U.S. 214 (1978)   Cited 963 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a FOIA requestor's rights are neither “diminished” nor “enhanced” in light of a “particular, litigation-generated need for these materials”

  3. Touhy v. Ragen

    340 U.S. 462 (1951)   Cited 692 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subordinate agency employee cannot be compelled to comply with a subpoena duces tecum where a valid agency regulation prohibits such compliance in the absence of agency authorization, and where no authorization has been granted

  4. N.L.R.B. v. HEATH TEC DIVISION/SAN FRANCISCO

    566 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1978)   Cited 28 times
    In NLRB v. Heath Tec Division/San Francisco, 566 F.2d 1367, 1371 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 832, 99 S.Ct. 110, 58 L.Ed.2d 127 (1978), we stated that in the absence of some valid evidentiary objection or privilege, 29 CFR § 102.118 cannot alone be the basis for the revocation of a properly issued subpoena.

  5. Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    907 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1990)   Cited 14 times
    In Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1990) (in banc), we enforced an order of the National Labor Relations Board that interpreted section 8(a)(1) to prohibit an employer's retaliation against a supervisory employee (who was otherwise unprotected by the Act) for protected activity engaged in by her close relatives.

  6. Indiana Hosp., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    10 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    Nos. 93-3070, 93-3096. Argued September 30, 1993. Decided November 26, 1993. James B. Brown (argued), Joseph M. McDermott, Jeffrey A. Van Doren, Cohen Grigsby, Pittsburgh, PA, for petitioner/cross respondent. Paul J. Spielberg (argued), Aileen A. Armstrong, William A. Baudler, N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, for respondent/cross petitioner. Michael R. Fanning (argued), Helen L. Morgan, Washington, DC, for intervenor/respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before: SCIRICA

  7. Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    893 F.2d 1468 (3d Cir. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    In Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 893 F.2d 1468 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 981, 111 S.Ct. 509, 112 L.Ed.2d 522 (1990), the court found that an employee who refused to work scheduled hours after a shift change had failed to present evidence of a constructive discharge because she had not terminated her employment, but had instead "attempted to continue her employment under terms which she unilaterally selected."

  8. Davis v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc.

    363 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 33 times

    No. 22513. July 21, 1966. Gary Green, Atty., NLRB, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Lawrence M. Joseph, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, for appellant. Allen P. Schoolfield, Jr., Dallas, Tex., T.S. Christopher, Ft. Worth, Tex., Donald Lee Cotton, El Paso, Tex., Christopher Bailey, Fort Worth, Tex., Schoolfield Smith, Dallas, Tex., for appellee. L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy, Levy

  9. 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

  10. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 99,798 times   680 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37