13 Cited authorities
Grannis v. Ordean
234 U.S. 385 (1914) Cited 663 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding service of process properly effectuated even though it was acknowledged that there was an error in the spelling of defendant's name
U.S. v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.
288 U.S. 62 (1933) Cited 347 timesHolding that the USA waives claims where it considers them during a refund claim but does not dispute them
Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 7 (1940) Cited 231 times 3 Legal AnalysesIn Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.
N.Y. Cent. R.R. v. Kinney
260 U.S. 340 (1922) Cited 218 timesHolding that “when a defendant has had notice from the beginning that the plaintiff sets up and is trying to enforce a claim against it because of specified conduct, the reasons for the statute of limitations do not exist”
Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.
318 U.S. 9 (1943) Cited 108 timesIn N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."
Consumers Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
113 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1940) Cited 56 timesIn Consumers Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38, 41, we considered and rejected the argument that no immediate and direct effect upon interstate commerce follows a labor controversy which curtails the employer's activity when its products are sold to an intervening private agency over whom the employer has no authority or control. It was said in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 214, 83 L. Ed. 126, "it is the effect upon interstate or foreign commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion."
Kansas Milling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
185 F.2d 413 (10th Cir. 1950) Cited 36 timesNo. 4036. November 9, 1950. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1950. George Siefkin, Wichita, Kan. (Carl T. Smith, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Washington D.C., and Leonard S. Kimmell, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent. Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges. HUXMAN, Circuit Judge. This case is here on the petition of the Kansas Milling
Cusano v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
190 F.2d 898 (3d Cir. 1951) Cited 35 timesNo. 10404. Argued May 22, 1951. Filed August 16, 1951. Samuel J. Davidson, Hoboken, N.J. (DeFazio, Davidson DeFazio, Hoboken, N.J., on the brief), for petitioners. Arnold Ordman, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Mark C. Curran, Washington, D.C., Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for respondent. Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges. STALEY, Circuit Judge. This case is
Williams v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
91 F. Supp. 652 (D. Del. 1950) Cited 29 timesIn Williams, although an incorrectly named corporate defendant was sued and served, the party intended to be so named and served was actually before the court, filed an answer and appeared generally in open court.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kingston Cake Co.
191 F.2d 563 (3d Cir. 1951) Cited 21 timesIn National Labor Relations Board v. Kingston Cake Co., 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 563, 567, the court said: "The purpose of the charge is to give the Board a preliminary basis for determining whether to proceed in the investigation of the case.