§
Murcole, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

  2. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  3. Dyer v. MacDougall

    201 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 321 times
    Holding that witness demeanor may persuade a jury to "assume the truth of what he denied," but a court cannot allow a case to go to the jury on such evidence

  4. Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

    318 U.S. 9 (1943)   Cited 108 times
    In 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."

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated

    340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company

    286 F.2d 16 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 20 times
    In Walton the court said only that "The requirements of substantiality of evidence and reasonableness of the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are not less in a case of reinstatement and reimbursement than where a cease and desist order is directed against interference" — not that the requirements are more strict.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Bratten Pontiac Corp.

    406 F.2d 349 (4th Cir. 1969)

    No. 12356. Argued October 30, 1968. Decided January 15, 1969. John D. Burgoyne, Attorney, N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Marjorie S. Gofreed, Attorney, N.L.R.B., on brief), for petitioner. William B. Devaney, Washington, D.C. (Steptoe Johnson, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondent. Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges. WINTER, Circuit Judge: On this petition

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co.

    120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941)   Cited 15 times

    No. 4770. June 10, 1941. On Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order against the Entwistle Manufacturing Company. Order modified and enforced. Walter B. Wilbur, of Washington, D.C., Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Sylvester Garrett, and William Stix, all of Washington, D.C., Attys