Plaza Auto Center, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp.

    982 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 328 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the damages for lost profits set forth were speculative because plaintiff produced evidence of its total product sales, without subdividing its data into the category of sales at issue; the court also noted that "[i]t would have been error for the district court to select an arbitrary percentage of total sales to represent the more narrow submarket of telephone sales"
  2. Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp.

    510 U.S. 815 (1993)   Cited 61 times
    Upholding exclusion of evidence of limited probative value
  3. Southern S.S. Co. v. Labor Board

    316 U.S. 31 (1942)   Cited 160 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding an abuse of discretion where the National Labor Relations Board sought to fulfill one congressional objective but “wholly ignore[d] other and equally important Congressional objectives”
  4. Penasquitos Village, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    565 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 124 times
    Recognizing that "[t]he substantial evidence standard is not modified in any way when the Board and its examiner disagree"
  5. Metz v. Transit Mix, Inc.

    828 F.2d 1202 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 66 times
    Firing of older employee to save salary costs resulting from seniority violates ADEA
  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Starbucks Corp.

    679 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 12 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Distinguishing between outbursts in public venues versus private spaces
  7. Kiewit Power Constructors Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    652 F.3d 22 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that a worker telling a supervisor he had “better bring [his] boxing gloves” in a dispute over break time did not lose the Act's protection
  8. Plaza Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    664 F.3d 286 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 7 times   5 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 10–72728 10–73125. 2011-12-19 PLAZA AUTO CENTER, INC., Petitioner/Cross–Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross–Petitioner. Stephanie R. Leach, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for the petitioner. Jill A. Griffin and Kira Dellinger Vol, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. QUIST Stephanie R. Leach, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for the petitioner. Jill A. Griffin and Kira Dellinger Vol, National Labor Relations Board, Washington

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.

    351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged
  10. Alton H. Piester, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    591 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    Nos. 09-1148, 09-1255. Argued: October 28, 2009. Decided: January 15, 2010. ARGUED: Charles F. Thompson, Jr., Malone, Thompson Summers, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Alton H. Piester, LLC. Milakshmi V. Rajapakse, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the Board. ON BRIEF: Michael D. Malone, Columbia, South Carolina, for Alton H. Piester, LLC. Meredith L. Jason, Supervisory Attorney, Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson