Schieber Millinery Co.

11 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Columbian Co.
306 U.S. 292 (1939) Cited 995 times
Defining substantial evidence
Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.
306 U.S. 332 (1939) Cited 139 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.
Pacific Co. v. Peterson
278 U.S. 130 (1928) Cited 177 times
Holding that the Jones Act “was not intended to restrict in any way the long-established right of a seaman to maintenance, cure and wages”
United States v. Reading Co.
253 U.S. 26 (1920) Cited 151 times
In Reading, for example, that conduct was the creation of a holding company that owned all the stock of a coal company and of a railroad.
Pierce v. United States
255 U.S. 398 (1921) Cited 119 times
In Pierce v. United States, 255 U.S. 398, 41 S.Ct. 365, 65 L.Ed. 697 (1921), for example, the government had obtained a conviction against a corporation and sought to enforce the penalty against the stockholders to whom the dissolved corporation's assets had been distributed.
United States v. Del., Lack. West. R.R
238 U.S. 516 (1915) Cited 67 times
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No. 517. Argued December 9, 10, 1914. Decided June 21, 1915. A railroad corporation engaged at the time of the passage of the Hepburn Act in the business of mining, buying, transporting and selling coal, in order to divest itself of title after the coal had been mined and before transportation began, caused a coal company to be incorporated having stockholders and officers in common with itself; thereupon the two
Shriver v. Woodbine Bank
285 U.S. 467 (1932) Cited 29 times
In Shriver v. Woodbine Savings Bank, 285 U.S. 467, 479 [52 S.Ct. 430, 76 L.Ed. 884, 892], the court said: 'Administrative remedies for the collection of taxes, if not made exclusive by statute, do not preclude the recovery of the tax by a common law action of debt.' Also, see, Commissioner of Banks v. HighlandTrust Co., 283 Mass. 71 [ 186 N.E. 229, 231].
United States v. Rizzo
297 U.S. 530 (1936) Cited 14 times
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 272. Argued January 9, 1936. Decided March 9, 1936. 1. In a suit in admiralty to forfeit a cargo of alcohol for breach of the customs and navigation laws, a claim of the United States for internal revenue taxes on the alcohol, being a non-maritime claim, cannot be set up in the libel; and to defer the presentation of such claim until after the final decree adjudicating the right to the property, is therefore not dilatory conduct
Zimmerman v. Harding
227 U.S. 489 (1913) Cited 39 times
In Zimmerman v. Harding (1912) 227 U.S. 489, 494-495 [57 L.Ed. 608, 611, 33 S.Ct. 387], the United States Supreme Court speaking of general principles of partnership law, said: "Neither is the remedy [for judicial dissolution and an accounting] in equity for a breach of a partnership agreement exclusive.
Nudelman v. Thimbles, Inc.
225 Mo. App. 553 (Mo. Ct. App. 1931) Cited 24 times
Opinion filed July 7, 1931. 1. — Pleading — Amended Petition — Departure — Waiver. Where an amended petition was filed and defendants filed their motion to strike out same upon the ground that it set up a different cause of action from that pleaded in the original petition, and that it substituted new parties against whom a separate and distinct relief was prayed, which motion being overruled, defendants attempted to preserve their exception in a term bill of exceptions, and answered over and went

Schieber Millinery Co.

11 Cited authorities

Defining substantial evidence

In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.

Holding that the Jones Act “was not intended to restrict in any way the long-established right of a seaman to maintenance, cure and wages”

In Reading, for example, that conduct was the creation of a holding company that owned all the stock of a coal company and of a railroad.

In Pierce v. United States, 255 U.S. 398, 41 S.Ct. 365, 65 L.Ed. 697 (1921), for example, the government had obtained a conviction against a corporation and sought to enforce the penalty against the stockholders to whom the dissolved corporation's assets had been distributed.