§
Northrop Corp.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 809 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

  2. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  3. Carpenters Local v. Labor Board

    365 U.S. 651 (1961)   Cited 84 times
    Noting Board's authority is remedial, not punitive

  4. Irving Air Chute Company v. N.L.R.B

    350 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 49 times
    In Irving Air Chute Co. v. N.L.R.B., 2 Cir., 350 F.2d 176, 182, the Court in allowing enforcement of the Board's order cited many cases for the proposition, "`It is for the Board not the courts to determine how the effect of prior unfair labor practices may be expunged'."

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Gulfmont Hotel Company

    362 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 43 times

    No. 22340. June 24, 1966. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Theodore J. Martineau, Atty., N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. H.L. Deakins, Jr., Houston, Tex., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellee. Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, RIVES, Circuit Judge, and CHOATE, District Judge. TUTTLE, Chief Judge: This petition by the

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Little Rock Downtowner, Inc.

    414 F.2d 1084 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 37 times

    No. 19427. August 19, 1969. Herman M. Levy, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Jonathan M. Marks, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief. Richard A. Brackhahn, of Fowler, Brackhahn Young, Memphis, Tenn., for respondent, Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., on the brief. Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and VOGEL and HEANEY, Circuit Judges

  7. United States v. King

    482 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1973)   Cited 19 times
    In United States v. King, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 183, 482 F.2d 768, 772 (1973), the court reasoned: "In the federal courts, when the purpose of mandamus is to secure a ruling on the intrinsic merits of a judicial act, the judge need not — and desirably should not — be named as an active party, but at most only as a nominal party with no real interest in the outcome."

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adhesive Products

    258 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 37 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Adhesive Products Corporation, 2 Cir., 258 F.2d 403, the court held that a written statement or memorandum which a witness had made prior to his testifying and from which he had refreshed his recollection should have been produced for the benefit of counsel in cross-examination.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Vapor Blast Manufacturing Company

    287 F.2d 402 (7th Cir. 1961)   Cited 28 times

    No. 13149. February 28, 1961. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. H. William Ihrig, Milwaukee, Wis., Milton Gerwin, Chicago, Ill., Philip L. Padden, Milwaukee, Wis., Earl A. Glick, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, KNOCH, Circuit Judge, and MERCER, District Judge. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. The National

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Dan Howard Mfg. Co.

    390 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968)   Cited 16 times
    In Dan Howard, supra, 390 F.2d at page 309, we further stated: "The court [Sixth Circuit] pointed out that it is relevant to consider the subjective intention of the signer and his expressed state of mind in deciding whether a misapprehension was knowingly induced."