Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

Weems v. United States

Holding that the forfeiture rule "is not a rigid one" and expressing "less reluctance to act under it when rights are asserted which are of such high character as to find expression and sanction in the Constitution or Bill of Rights"

Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

In N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."

Matter of Inland Steel Co., (N.D.Ind. 1980)

In Inland Steel, the district judge examined the structure and legislative history of section 8 of the Act and concluded that Congress did not intend to grant the Secretary of Labor the authority to inspect documents pursuant to a warrant.

National Labor Rel. Board v. J.H. Allison Co.

Consumers Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

In Consumers Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38, 41, we considered and rejected the argument that no immediate and direct effect upon interstate commerce follows a labor controversy which curtails the employer's activity when its products are sold to an intervening private agency over whom the employer has no authority or control. It was said in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 214, 83 L. Ed. 126, "it is the effect upon interstate or foreign commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion."

National Labor Rel. Board v. Montgomery Ward

Singer Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

In Singer Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 131, 134, the court said: "* * * The greatest of rascals may solemnly affirm his honesty of purpose; that does not foreclose a jury from finding from the evidence submitted that he possesses no trace of such innocent quality.