The Boeing Company

26 Cited authorities

New Hampshire v. Maine
532 U.S. 742 (2001) Cited 4,670 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 16,109 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny
Board of Regents v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (1972) Cited 14,929 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."
Pegram v. Herdrich
530 U.S. 211 (2000) Cited 1,388 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was "jurisdiction regardless of the correctness of the removal" because the "amended complaint alleged ERISA violations, over which the federal courts have jurisdiction"
Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.
339 U.S. 306 (1950) Cited 10,519 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"
Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,346 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Armstrong v. Manzo
380 U.S. 545 (1965) Cited 2,605 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to give proper notice violates "the rudimentary demands of due process of law"
Richards v. Jefferson County
517 U.S. 793 (1996) Cited 525 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding application of preclusion violated due process where there were neither special procedures to protect nonparties' interests or an understanding by the initial plaintiffs that their suit was brought in representative capacity
Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
522 U.S. 359 (1998) Cited 426 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board "is not free to prescribe what inferences from the evidence it will accept and reject, but must draw all those inferences that the evidence fairly demands"
Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc.
529 U.S. 460 (2000) Cited 262 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding amendment did not relate back where plaintiff knew of the party's "role and existence" and added the new party only after learning the named defendant could not satisfy the judgment
Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,075 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
Section 554 - Adjudications
5 U.S.C. § 554 Cited 1,045 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."

The Boeing Company

26 Cited authorities

Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny

Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."

Holding that there was "jurisdiction regardless of the correctness of the removal" because the "amended complaint alleged ERISA violations, over which the federal courts have jurisdiction"

Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that failure to give proper notice violates "the rudimentary demands of due process of law"

Holding application of preclusion violated due process where there were neither special procedures to protect nonparties' interests or an understanding by the initial plaintiffs that their suit was brought in representative capacity

Holding that the Board "is not free to prescribe what inferences from the evidence it will accept and reject, but must draw all those inferences that the evidence fairly demands"

Holding amendment did not relate back where plaintiff knew of the party's "role and existence" and added the new party only after learning the named defendant could not satisfy the judgment

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

Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."