§

Snaider Syrup Corp.

220 N.L.R.B. 238 (N.L.R.B. 1975)
Snaider Syrup Corp.

7 Cited authorities

  1. California v. Green

    399 U.S. 149 (1970)   Cited 2,937 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making those statements"

  2. United States v. De Sisto

    329 F.2d 929 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 131 times
    In DeSisto, for instance, the prior identifications were either made under oath and subject to cross-examination or were adopted by testimony subject to those safeguards on "which our law places primary reliance for the ascertainment of truth."

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Little Rock Downtowner, Inc.

    414 F.2d 1084 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 37 times

    No. 19427. August 19, 1969. Herman M. Levy, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Jonathan M. Marks, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief. Richard A. Brackhahn, of Fowler, Brackhahn Young, Memphis, Tenn., for respondent, Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., on the brief. Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and VOGEL and HEANEY, Circuit Judges

  4. 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."

  5. 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.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Nu-Southern Dyeing Finishing

    444 F.2d 11 (4th Cir. 1971)   Cited 14 times

    No. 14960. Argued April 5, 1971. Decided May 28, 1971. Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Marjorie S. Gofreed, Atty., N.L.R.B., on brief), for petitioner. Ernest W. Machen, Jr., Charlotte, N.C. (Blakeney, Alexander Machen, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondents. Before BRYAN, WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges. WINTER, Circuit Judge: Nu-Southern Dyeing Finishing, Inc. and

  7. Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 160   Cited 7,061 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