§

MIKESELL'S SNACK FOOD COMPANY F/K/A MIKE-SELL'S POTATO CHIP COMPANY

09-CA-184215 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 27, 2018)
MIKESELL'S SNACK FOOD COMPANY F/K/A MIKE-SELL'S POTATO CHIP COMPANY

5 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  2. United States v. Johnson

    726 F.2d 1018 (4th Cir. 1984)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that "the magistrate could simply take judicial notice of the distances involved and conclude that Johnson probably used his automobile. A magistrate sitting in Baltimore, familiar with these distances, could properly take cognizance of them. Geographical information of this type would be 'generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial courtf, ]' See Fed.R.Evid. 201... geographical information is especially appropriate for judicial notice."

  3. Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Div. v. N.L.R.B

    722 F.2d 1120 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 17 times
    In Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Division v. NLRB, 722 F.2d 1120 (3d Cir. 1983), the court rejected an argument that an "extracontractual residual rights" theory allowed imposition of attendance rules.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Miller Brewing Company

    408 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 17 times

    No. 22698. February 20, 1969. John D. Burgoyne (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, David C. Nevins, Washington, D.C., Paul A. Cassady, Director, NLRB, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Willard Z. Carr, Jr. (argued) of Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District Judge. Hon. Harry Pregerson, United States District Judge, Los Angeles

  5. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,952 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."