Hickman v. Taylor

Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

Labor Board v. Laughlin

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

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."

Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

In N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."

N.L.R.B. v. Capitol Fish Company

Holding that the Housekeeping Statute "cannot be construed to establish authority in the executive departments to determine whether certain papers and records are privileged," nor can it "bar a judicial determination of the question of privilege or a demand for the production of evidence found not privileged"

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co.

In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F.2d 79, 86 (9th Cir. 1953), we recognized that "carriage, behavior, bearing, manner and appearance of a witness, — his demeanor, —" may cause the trier of fact to reject uncontradicted testimony.

N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company