The Queen's Medical Center

19 Cited authorities

Livadas v. Bradshaw
512 U.S. 107 (1994) Cited 1,631 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding there was no section 301 preemption because a wage rate provision of the CBA only had to be referenced to compute the proper damages
San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,559 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning
573 U.S. 513 (2014) Cited 275 times 150 Legal Analyses
Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”
Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge
403 U.S. 274 (1971) Cited 826 times
Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area
Farmer v. Carpenters
430 U.S. 290 (1977) Cited 607 times
Holding that an otherwise preempted claim could be prosecuted in state or federal court if the conduct alleged was sufficiently outrageous
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters
436 U.S. 180 (1978) Cited 554 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA
Wisconsin Dept. of Industry v. Gould Inc.
475 U.S. 282 (1986) Cited 264 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state's use of its spending power to sanction certain conduct unrelated to the state contract at issue was regulatory
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale
463 U.S. 491 (1983) Cited 277 times
Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract
Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co.
394 U.S. 369 (1969) Cited 370 times
Holding that state court could not issue injunction against peaceful strike sought by third-party railroad terminal operator to avoid economic damages from shutdown of terminal
Free v. Bland
369 U.S. 663 (1962) Cited 417 times
Holding that federal law preempted application of Texas community property law in state probate proceedings

The Queen's Medical Center

19 Cited authorities

Holding there was no section 301 preemption because a wage rate provision of the CBA only had to be referenced to compute the proper damages

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area

Holding that an otherwise preempted claim could be prosecuted in state or federal court if the conduct alleged was sufficiently outrageous

Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

Holding that a state's use of its spending power to sanction certain conduct unrelated to the state contract at issue was regulatory

Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract

Holding that state court could not issue injunction against peaceful strike sought by third-party railroad terminal operator to avoid economic damages from shutdown of terminal

Holding that federal law preempted application of Texas community property law in state probate proceedings