3 Cited authorities
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,673 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Co.
199 F.2d 39 (6th Cir. 1952) Cited 15 timesNo. 11461. September 19, 1952. Philip Fusco, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Bernard Dunau, and Alice Andrews, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Henry G. Friedlander, New York City (Henry G. Friedlander, New York City, on the brief), for respondent. Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges. MILLER, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to the provisions of ยง 10(e) of the National Labor Relations
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fulton Bag
180 F.2d 68 (10th Cir. 1950) Cited 7 timesNo. 3932. January 3, 1950. Rehearing Denied March 15, 1950. Edward Friedman, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, and Mozart G. Ratner and George H. Plaut, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief) for petitioner. Kenneth W. Robinson Denver, Colo. (Robert D. Charlton and Robert Swanson Denver, Colo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON