Marcus Trucking Co., Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 300 times
    Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board
  2. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8
  3. Fay v. Douds

    172 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1949)   Cited 139 times
    Suggesting that district court jurisdiction is appropriate whenever a party in a labor dispute asserts non-frivolous claims of a constitutional violation
  4. National Labor Rel. Board v. Gaynor News Co.

    197 F.2d 719 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 45 times
    In Gaynor it was conceded that the sole criterion for extra payments was union membership, and the vacation payments were admittedly gratuitous.
  5. National Labor Bd. v. Sanson Hosiery Mills

    195 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1952)   Cited 34 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Sanson Hosiery Mills, 5 Cir., 195 F.2d 350, this court held that when the Board has duly certified a bargaining representative, such certification must be respected by the employer until set aside by the Board, even though the Union has meanwhile lost its majority support of the employees.
  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Brotherhood

    225 F.2d 343 (8th Cir. 1955)   Cited 21 times

    No. 15175. August 26, 1955. Frederick U. Reel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Robert H. Hurt, Washington, D.C., with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Manning, Kansas City, Mo., for respondent. Albert J. Goldberg, Washington, D.C., filed brief for Central States Drivers Council as amicus curiae. Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN, and VOGEL, Circuit Judges. JOHNSEN

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Coats Clark, Inc.

    241 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1957)   Cited 13 times

    No. 16017. February 13, 1957. Louis Schwartz, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Theophil C. Kammholz, General Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Frank A. Constangy, M.A. Prowell, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee. Before RIVES, TUTTLE and BROWN, Circuit Judges. TUTTLE, Circuit Judge. This is a petition for the enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board

  8. National Labor Bd. v. Dallas Gen. Drivers

    228 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 12 times

    No. 15589. January 17, 1956. Norton J. Come, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Robert G. Johnson, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Houston Clinton, Jr., Mullinax Wells, of Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Before BORAH and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge. DAWKINS, District Judge. The Board petitions for enforcement of its order against the respondent union

  9. Blaustein v. Pan American Petroleum Transport Co.

    263 A.D. 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)   Cited 23 times

    December 19, 1941. Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County, ROSENMAN, J. Allen T. Klots of counsel [ Henry L. Stimson, Charles P. Noyes and Willis L.M. Reese with him on the brief; Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam Roberts, attorneys], for the plaintiffs, respondents, appellants. Ralph S. Harris of counsel [ John R. McCullough, Frederick W.P. Lorenzen, Wyllys S. Newcomb and John A. Wells with him on the brief; Dwight, Harris, Koegel Caskey, attorneys], for the appellant, respondent, Standard Oil Company

  10. Hauben v. Morris

    161 Misc. 174 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1936)   Cited 6 times
    In Hauben v. Morris, 161 Misc. 174, 291 N.Y.S. 96 (1936), a stockholders' derivative suit was brought against directors to recover money acquired by them in violation of their fiduciary duty. They were held liable for the profits.