§

Thurston Motor Lines, Inc.

159 N.L.R.B. 1265 (N.L.R.B. 1966)
Thurston Motor Lines, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,306 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  2. 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

  3. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  4. Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills

    339 U.S. 563 (1950)   Cited 132 times
    Reasoning that Board's entitlement to enforcement prevents cases from becoming moot because it "adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt"

  5. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".

  6. People v. Dusing

    5 N.Y.2d 126 (N.Y. 1959)   Cited 95 times
    In People v. Dusing (5 N.Y.2d 126, 130), Judge VAN VOORHIS said, "We should not hold that the speed of an automobile in a prosecution of this nature [speeding] can be established by the observations of eyewitnesses, no matter how expert they may be, unless the speed is checked by some mechanical or electrical device."

  7. People v. Heyser

    2 N.Y.2d 390 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 74 times
    In People v. Heyser (2 N.Y.2d 390, 393, supra) we held that "evidence of the reading of an untested speedometer without more would be insufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding".

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company

    237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 40 times

    No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH

  9. Walls Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    321 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1963)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that complaint to state health department was protected conduct given lack of evidence that "the allegations were made with intent to falsify or maliciously injure the [employer]"

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Zimnox Coal Company

    336 F.2d 516 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 10 times

    No. 15335. September 14, 1964. Leo N. McGuire, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Henry M. Wick, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., and Dominic J. Bianco, Steubenville, Ohio (Coleman Bianco, Steubenville, Ohio, Richard J. Smith, Delisi, Wick Vuono, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief; Jack B. Josselson, Schmidt, Effron, Josselson