Overnite Transportation Co.

60 Cited authorities

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.
486 U.S. 847 (1988) Cited 2,232 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that relief from judgment is not automatic even if the presiding judge violates § 455 by failing to recuse himself
United States v. Zolin
491 U.S. 554 (1989) Cited 1,155 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that in camera review may be used to probe crime-fraud challenges to attorney-client privilege
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 657 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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
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"
Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Ladd
464 U.S. 814 (1983) Cited 245 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that "Multistate Bar Examination" could not be protected because it is a generic term denoting the bar examination suitable for use in more than one state
U.S. v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc.
73 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 410 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that order directing witness to testify before administrative agency could be appealed immediately without defiance and contempt
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"
Chitimacha Tribe of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., Inc.
690 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1983) Cited 409 times
Holding that a judge's prior representation of a company "does not forever prevent him from sitting in a case in which [said company] is a party"
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Section 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
28 U.S.C. § 455 Cited 11,571 times 29 Legal Analyses
Setting forth standards of recusal

Overnite Transportation Co.

60 Cited authorities

Holding that relief from judgment is not automatic even if the presiding judge violates § 455 by failing to recuse himself

Holding that in camera review may be used to probe crime-fraud challenges to attorney-client privilege

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."

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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"

Concluding that "Multistate Bar Examination" could not be protected because it is a generic term denoting the bar examination suitable for use in more than one state

Holding that order directing witness to testify before administrative agency could be appealed immediately without defiance and contempt

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"

Holding that a judge's prior representation of a company "does not forever prevent him from sitting in a case in which [said company] is a party"

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Setting forth standards of recusal