§

U Ocean Palace Pavilion

345 N.L.R.B. 1162 (N.L.R.B. 2005)
U Ocean Palace Pavilion

11 Cited authorities

  1. Trebor Sportswear Co. v. the Ltd. Stores, Inc.

    865 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 366 times
    Holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to additional discovery where they "proffered no persuasive basis for the district court to conclude that further discovery would yield" relevant evidence

  2. Starter Corporation v. Converse, Inc.

    170 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 184 times
    Holding "that the district court did not abuse its discretion" in excluding a survey from evidence because "the probative value of the survey [was] so slight that it was easily outweighed, under a Rule 403 analysis, by the danger of confusion of the issues"

  3. Pierce v. F.R. Tripler Co.

    955 F.2d 820 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 139 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly excluded the evidence "albeit for the wrong stated reason"

  4. Catullo v. Metzner

    834 F.2d 1075 (1st Cir. 1987)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that testimony of settlement negotiations was admissible to “prove the terms of the agreement itself”

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. FES

    301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 52 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue not exhausted where the "tenor" of petitioner's objection to the Board was "purely factual," but the tenor of the objection on appeal was legal

  6. Broadcort Capital Corp. v. Summa Med. Corp.

    972 F.2d 1183 (10th Cir. 1992)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that witness with some general experience and education in the field lacked sufficient qualifications to qualify as expert in the area

  7. Cates v. Morgan Portable Bldg. Corp.

    780 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that "the parties here have impliedly stipulated to the application of Illinois law; and an implied stipulation is good enough"

  8. Vulcan Hart Corp.

    718 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1983)   Cited 44 times
    Holding “Rule 408 excludes evidence of settlement offers only if such evidence is offered to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim under negotiation”

  9. Red Ball Interior v. Palmadessa

    908 F. Supp. 1226 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    In Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadesso, 908 F. Supp. 1226 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) the lawyer whose disqualification was sought had originally indicated that he would not be involved in the litigation but later attended a conference before the court.

  10. Penny v. Winthrop-University Hosp.

    883 F. Supp. 839 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)   Cited 15 times
    Denying a plaintiff's motion to amend to add a retaliation claim based on a February 3, 1992 letter from the defendant offering the plaintiff conditional employment in an effort to settle a grievance regarding her allegedly discriminatory termination because "[i]n the Court's view, if anything, the February 3, 1992 letter constitute[d] the opposite of an adverse action, because it conditionally offer[ed] the plaintiff reinstatement of her already terminated position"