Martin Luther Memorial Home, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

    376 U.S. 254 (1964)   Cited 7,008 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice
  2. Chicago v. Morales

    527 U.S. 41 (1999)   Cited 1,336 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that vagueness that "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests" is subject to facial challenge
  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 652 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."
  4. Letter Carriers v. Austin

    418 U.S. 264 (1974)   Cited 609 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union newsletter's description of a “scab” as a “traitor” could not be construed as a factual assertion
  5. Linn v. Plant Guard Workers

    383 U.S. 53 (1966)   Cited 732 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice
  6. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
  7. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Magnavox Co. of Tennessee

    415 U.S. 322 (1974)   Cited 76 times
    In Magnavox, the Board changed its bifurcated rule and adopted the Eighth Circuit's view that the union had no power to waive employee distribution rights on behalf of either itself or another union.
  9. Community Hospitals of Cent Cal. v. N.L.R.B

    335 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the single-facility presumption can be rebutted by a showing of “functional integration,” among other factors
  10. Adtranz ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation, N.A. v. National Labor Relations

    253 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "derogatory racial or sexual epithets" are not entitled to NLRA protection even when made within the context of union-protected activity