3 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
National Labor Rel. Board v. Protein Blenders
215 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1954) Cited 9 timesNo. 14937. September 13, 1954. Arnold Ordman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Norton J. Come and Robert E. Miller, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Newton L. Margulies, Des Moines, Iowa (Leo M. Baker, Harvey E. Minkler, Des Moines, Iowa, on the brief), for respondent. Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and JOHNSEN and COLLET
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co.
120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941) Cited 15 timesNo. 4770. June 10, 1941. On Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order against the Entwistle Manufacturing Company. Order modified and enforced. Walter B. Wilbur, of Washington, D.C., Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Sylvester Garrett, and William Stix, all of Washington, D.C., Attys