The Boeing Company

27 Cited authorities

New Hampshire v. Maine
532 U.S. 742 (2001) Cited 4,542 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 15,742 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"
Board of Regents v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (1972) Cited 14,674 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 1,348 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 10,300 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 18,832 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Armstrong v. Manzo
380 U.S. 545 (1965) Cited 2,555 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 511 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 418 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 253 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 7,010 times 19 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 1,035 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."
Section 2635.502 - Personal and business relationships
5 C.F.R. § 2635.502 Cited 20 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that an executive-branch employee should not participate in matters involving "[a]ny person for whom the employee has, within the last year, served as . . . attorney."

The Boeing Company

27 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 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."

Providing that an executive-branch employee should not participate in matters involving "[a]ny person for whom the employee has, within the last year, served as . . . attorney."