§
Royal Laundry

7 Cited authorities

  1. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Medication Systems, Ltd.

    640 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reasoning that a court will enforce an agency subpoena if, inter alia, it "is not needlessly broad"

  3. P.S.C. Resources, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    576 F.2d 380 (1st Cir. 1978)   Cited 15 times

    No. 77-1389. Argued March 9, 1978. Decided May 12, 1978. Sanford A. Kowal, Boston, Mass., with whom Sallop, Kowal Davis, Assoc., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for petitioner. Wyneva Johnson, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Michael S. Winer, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor

  4. Hedison Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B

    643 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    No. 80-1421. Argued February 11, 1981. Decided March 11, 1981. David F. Sweeney, Warwick, R. I., with whom Breslin Sweeney, Warwick, R. I., was on brief, for petitioner. Corinna L. Metcalf, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Richard B. Bader and Sandra Shands Elligers, Attys., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent. Petition

  5. N.L.R.B. v. American Art Industries, Inc.

    415 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 15 times
    Upholding the Bannon Mills principle and recognizing that "to maintain the integrity of the hearing process" the ALJ properly refused to admit secondary evidence proffered by the employer which it refused to produce in the face of a valid subpoena duces tecum

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co.

    621 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1980)

    No. 79-1884. Submitted April 16, 1980. Decided May 7, 1980. Rehearing Denied June 26, 1980. Lafe E. Solomon, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., argued, William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Steven Miller, Minneapolis, Minn., argued, Martin L. Garden, Minneapolis, Minn., on brief, for respondent. Appeal from the National

  7. 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