§

Taylor Milling Corp.

26 N.L.R.B. 424 (N.L.R.B. 1940)
Taylor Milling Corp.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,298 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  2. Labor Board v. Fainblatt

    306 U.S. 601 (1939)   Cited 281 times
    Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power

  3. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Algoma Co.

    291 U.S. 67 (1934)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that misleading advertising was still actionable thirty years after initial use because “[t]here is no bar through lapse of time to a proceeding in the public interest to set an industry in order by removing the occasion for deception or mistake ...”

  4. United States v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co.

    118 U.S. 120 (1886)   Cited 161 times
    Stating that when the Government became the owner of certain negotiable paper, "[it took] such paper subject to all the equities [then] existing against the person from whom [it] . . . acquire[d] . . . title," except that its claim could not be barred by the state limitations period

  5. United States v. Beebe

    127 U.S. 338 (1888)   Cited 142 times
    Recognizing that in some instances, an action by the government to set aside a land patent could involve a cognizable public interest

  6. United States v. Insley

    130 U.S. 263 (1889)   Cited 47 times

    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 221. Argued March 21, 1889. Decided April 8, 1889. In a suit in equity, brought by the United States to redeem a parcel of land in Kansas, from a mortgage, the defence of laches cannot be set up, although the bill was filed more than twelve years after the defendant obtained title to the land by purchasing it on a foreclosure sale under the mortgage, and more than thirteen years after the United States purchased the