§
STEIN INC.

27 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,675 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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 "

  2. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 369 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors

  3. Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    414 U.S. 168 (1973)   Cited 497 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  5. WSB Electric, Inc. v. Curry

    519 U.S. 1109 (1997)   Cited 152 times
    Explaining the distinction between medical judgment and deliberate mistreatment

  6. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  7. Caine v. Hardy

    503 U.S. 936 (1992)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 / Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 doctrine

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

    447 U.S. 490 (1980)   Cited 65 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U.S. 490 (1980) (ILA I), we reviewed the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that the Rules and their enforcement constituted unlawful secondary activity under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4) (B) and 158(e).

  9. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice

  10. Frankl v. HTH Corp.

    693 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that employer withheld requested documents in bad faith where union repeatedly explained why limited production was inadequate and where union signed confidentiality agreement to address employer’s concerns