Rotax Metals, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

  1. Escobedo v. Illinois

    378 U.S. 478 (1964)   Cited 4,239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a suspect is interrogated with the goal of eliciting incriminating statements and the suspect has not been warned about his or her right to remain silent, the denial of the opportunity to consult with the suspect's attorney is a violation of the Sixth Amendment
  2. West v. AT&T Co.

    311 U.S. 223 (1940)   Cited 1,628 times
    Holding that federal courts must defer to an intermediate state court's interpretation of state law, made in the very case under consideration, when the state supreme court has denied review
  3. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
  4. Wellington Mill, W. Point Mfg. v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1964)   Cited 49 times
    Stating that General Counsel's "refusal to [issue a complaint] is final and unappealable"
  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.
  6. Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.

    167 N.E. 235 (Mass. 1929)   Cited 113 times
    In Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp. 267 Mass. 501, 516, the court said: "A violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation, although not conclusive, is evidence of negligence on the part of a violator as to all consequences that the statute, ordinance or regulation was intended to prevent."
  7. N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co.

    351 F.2d 693 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 33 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co., 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 693, also decided since this case was submitted, this court stated that if the factual conclusion of the Board is based upon substantial evidence on the whole record, this court must accept such factual determination as binding. Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 354 F.2d 432, decided December 29, 1965, adheres to these principles.
  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ace Comb Co.

    342 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 32 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Ace Comb Co., 342 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1965) and N.L.R.B. v. Bird Machine Co., 161 F.2d 589 (1st Cir. 1947), where instructions to supervisory employees not to make coercive statements did not relieve employer of imputed liability it is indicated that it might be otherwise if these instructions had been communicated to the employees.
  9. N.L.R.B. v. Joseph Antell, Inc.

    358 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1966)   Cited 26 times
    In Antell, the court stated that the smallness of a plant, or a staff, may be material as bearing on the knowledge on the part of the employer of an employee's union activities, but only to the extent that it may be shown to have made it likely that the employer observed, or otherwise learned about the activity in question.
  10. Portable Electric Tools, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    309 F.2d 423 (7th Cir. 1962)   Cited 29 times
    In Portable Electric Tools, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir. (1962), 309 F.2d 423, we considered a situation in many respects similar to the case at bar.
  11. Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 160   Cited 7,062 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB