§

Lucille E. Taylor, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.

01981725 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 20, 2001)
Lucille E. Taylor, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.

2 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,569 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 "

  2. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,614 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"