§

Snellco Construction, Inc

292 N.L.R.B. 320 (N.L.R.B. 1989)
Snellco Construction, Inc

5 Cited authorities

  1. Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

    306 U.S. 208 (1939)   Cited 512 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

  2. Action Elec. Contrs. Co. v. Goldin

    64 N.Y.2d 213 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 43 times
    In Action Electrical Contractors Co. v. Goldin, 64 N.Y.2d 213, 222 (1984), the Court of Appeals held that "[s]upplements may be provided by cash payments equal to the cost of providing the prevailing supplements, a combination of cash and benefits, or by an equivalent benefits plan."

  3. Southwest Regional Jt. Bd., v. N.L.R.B

    441 F.2d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1970)   Cited 17 times
    Finding that the "proper question `is not whether an employee actually felt intimidated but whether the employer engaged in conduct which may reasonably be said to tend to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act'" (quoting Joy Silk Mills, supra, 185 F.2d at 743-44)

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kohler Company

    220 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1955)   Cited 30 times

    Nos. 11272, 11283. March 7, 1955. Rehearing Denied April 7, 1955. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Irving M. Herman, Atty., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board. William F. Howe, Washington, D.C., Lyman C. Conger, Edward J. Hammer, Kohler, Wis., Jerome Powell, Gall, Lane Howe, Washington, D.C., for Kohler Co. Max Raskin, Milwaukee, Wis., David Rabinovitz, Sheboygan

  5. Paudler v. Paudler

    185 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1951)   Cited 18 times
    In Paudler, the Fifth Circuit recognized an individual's right to change domicile for any reason at any time. The jurisdictional inquiry is limited to the fact of relocation and the intended and presumed permanency of that relocation; it does not include consideration of the motivation for making that change.