Pioneer Hotel & Gambling Hall

28 Cited authorities

United States v. Armstrong
517 U.S. 456 (1996) Cited 2,258 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was no evidence of selective prosecution where the prosecutor "explained in an affidavit that . . . several of the defendants had criminal histories including narcotics and firearms violations"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 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."
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
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
International Union
459 F.2d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 118 times
Holding that where a “judge plays a role in suppression of the evidence, the force of [any adverse] inference is dissipated”
W.F. Bolin Co. v. N.L.R.B
70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995) Cited 48 times
Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues
Kinney Drugs, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
74 F.3d 1419 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 26 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that credibility findings upheld unless "hopelessly incredible"
Ready Mixed Concrete v. Nat. Lab. Rel. Bd.
81 F.3d 1546 (10th Cir. 1996) Cited 24 times
Imputing supervisor's knowledge of employee's union activities to company where supervisor had anti-union animus, but acknowledging that decision-maker admitted he probably knew of employee's union activities
Wilson Trophy Co. v. N.L.R.B
989 F.2d 1502 (8th Cir. 1993) Cited 21 times
Affirming Board's finding that the employer promulgated a rule in violation of § 8 where the warehouse supervisor told employees not to discuss wages
Abbey's Transp. Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
837 F.2d 575 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 25 times
Finding violation when interrogator was a "lawyer-consultant"
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 163,156 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 612 - Writing Used to Refresh a Witness's Memory
Fed. R. Evid. 612 Cited 517 times 19 Legal Analyses
Providing rules for using a writing to refresh a witness's recollection

Pioneer Hotel & Gambling Hall

28 Cited authorities

Holding that there was no evidence of selective prosecution where the prosecutor "explained in an affidavit that . . . several of the defendants had criminal histories including narcotics and firearms violations"

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."

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Holding that where a “judge plays a role in suppression of the evidence, the force of [any adverse] inference is dissipated”

Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues

Holding that credibility findings upheld unless "hopelessly incredible"

Imputing supervisor's knowledge of employee's union activities to company where supervisor had anti-union animus, but acknowledging that decision-maker admitted he probably knew of employee's union activities

Affirming Board's finding that the employer promulgated a rule in violation of § 8 where the warehouse supervisor told employees not to discuss wages

Finding violation when interrogator was a "lawyer-consultant"

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Providing rules for using a writing to refresh a witness's recollection