§
Parts Depot

45 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Jencks v. United States

    353 U.S. 657 (1957)   Cited 1,103 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants are entitled to obtain the prior statements of persons to government agents when those persons are to testify against the defendants at trial

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  4. Telectronics, Inc. v. U.S.

    490 U.S. 1046 (1989)   Cited 74 times

    No. 88-1397. May 1, 1989, OCTOBER TERM, 1988. C.A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 857 F. 2d 778.

  5. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum

    112 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 1997)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding no common interest when First Lady had personal legal interest in criminal investigation, while White House had only political interest, so investigation "can have no legal, factual, or even strategic effect on the White House"

  6. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas

    902 F.2d 244 (4th Cir. 1990)   Cited 183 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that all documents related to common claim “are subject to a joint defense privilege that[one party] may not waive unilaterally”

  7. Langevine v. District of Columbia

    106 F.3d 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 123 times
    Holding trial judge did not abuse discretion by reinstating jury's award of damages on false arrest and false imprisonment claims, including $200,000 for bodily injury, physical pain and suffering, and mental anguish

  8. Sagendorf-Teal v. County of Rensselaer

    100 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that a state law claim can be dismissed when the state law does not provide an additional theory of recovery

  9. Pierce v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

    110 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that plaintiff has burden of production over question whether agreement was knowing and voluntary

  10. In re United States

    733 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1984)   Cited 96 times

    No. 1181, Docket 84-3021. MDL No. 381. Argued April 2, 1984. Decided April 13, 1984. Joan M. Bernott, Sp. Litigation Counsel Torts Branch, Civil Div. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Div., Washington, D.C., Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Arvin Maskin and Gretchen Leah Witt, Trial Attys., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y.), for petitioner United States of America. David J. Dean, Dean, Falanga, Sinrod Rose, Carle Place, N.Y., for plaintiffs-respondents

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,987 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  12. Section 3500 - Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses

    18 U.S.C. § 3500   Cited 5,462 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring the government to produce "any statement," including testimony provided before the grand jury, only after the witness has testified on direct examination at trial

  13. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,324 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  14. Rule 611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 611   Cited 1,937 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination

  15. Section 102.48 - No exceptions filed; exceptions filed; motions for reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening the record

    29 C.F.R. § 102.48   Cited 105 times
    Limiting reopening of the record to "newly discovered evidence" that "would require a different result"

  16. Section 102.46 - Exceptions and brief in support; answering briefs to exceptions; cross-exceptions and brief in support; answering briefs to cross-exceptions; reply briefs; failure to except; oral argument; filing requirements; amicus curiae briefs

    29 C.F.R. § 102.46   Cited 103 times
    Providing that the answering brief to exceptions "must be limited to the questions raised in the exceptions," "must present clearly the points of fact and law relied on in support of the position taken on each question," and "must specify those pages of the record which the party contends support the Judge's finding"

  17. Section 102.118 - Present and former Board employees prohibited from producing documents and testifying; production of witnesses' statements after direct testimony

    29 C.F.R. § 102.118   Cited 57 times

    (a)Prohibition on producing files and documents. Except as provided in § 102.117 respecting requests cognizable under the Freedom of Information Act, no present or former employee or specially designated agent of the Agency will produce or present any files, documents, reports, memoranda, or records of the Board or of the General Counsel, whether in response to a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise, without the written consent of the Board or the Chairman of the Board if the document is in Washington