§

Singer Sewing Machine Co.

140 N.L.R.B. 1061 (N.L.R.B. 1963)
Singer Sewing Machine Co.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Morgan v. United States

    304 U.S. 1 (1938)   Cited 634 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary"

  2. United States v. Chemical Foundation

    272 U.S. 1 (1926)   Cited 863 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that enemy-property custodian "was a mere conservator and was authorized to sell only to prevent waste"

  3. Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

    312 U.S. 426 (1941)   Cited 506 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

  4. Labor Board v. Donnelly Co.

    330 U.S. 219 (1947)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that a hearing examiner's prior adverse ruling did not prevent him from adjudicating the same case on retrial even though the examiner's initial decision had been reversed for improper exclusion of evidence

  5. Seltenreich v. Town of Fairbanks

    348 U.S. 887 (1954)   Cited 70 times

    No. 271. November 22, 1954. Facts and opinion, D.C., 103 F. Supp. 319, 13 Alaska 582; 211 F.2d 83, 14 Alaska 568. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Denied.

  6. Willapoint Oysters v. Ewing

    174 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1949)   Cited 130 times
    In Willapoint Oysters v. Ewing (9th Cir. 1949) 174 F.2d 676, cert. denied 338 U.S. 860, 70 S.Ct. 101, 94 L.Ed. 527, rehearing den. 339 U.S. 945, 70 S.Ct. 793, 94 L.Ed. 1360, this Court relied upon Consolidated Edison to hold that hearsay alone, or even hearsay corroborated by a mere scintilla could never provide substantial evidence to support an administrative finding.

  7. Chicago, B. Q. Ry. Co. v. Babcock

    204 U.S. 585 (1907)   Cited 138 times
    Analogizing state tax assessment board members' testimony concerning "operation of * * * minds" to prohibition against allowing jury members to testify as to "the motives and influences that led to their verdict"

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

    294 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 58 times
    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"

  9. Foreman Clark, Inc. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    215 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1954)   Cited 30 times

    No. 13894. July 30, 1954. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Balthis, George R. Richter, Jr., Roy Littlejohn, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Fannie Boyls, Ruth V. Reel, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before HEALY, BONE and LEMMON, Circuit Judges. LEMMON, Circuit Judge. "The flattery of hope and the impressions of fear", referred to by common-law writers in connection with confessions, can intrude

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co.

    180 F.2d 840 (4th Cir. 1950)   Cited 35 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co., 4 Cir., 180 F.2d 840, 844, similar contentions were considered and determined.