Welcome-American Fertilizer Co.

91 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,707 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,504 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Tot v. United States
319 U.S. 463 (1943) Cited 737 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a presumption that a person obtained a gun through interstate commerce based on proof of past convictions to be unreasonable
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 471 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Interstate Circuit v. U.S.
306 U.S. 208 (1939) Cited 514 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
May Stores Co. v. Labor Board
326 U.S. 376 (1945) Cited 257 times
Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"
Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 7 (1940) Cited 232 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.
Labor Board v. Nevada Copper Co.
316 U.S. 105 (1942) Cited 196 times
Holding that "if the findings of the Board are supported by evidence the courts are not free to set them aside even though the Board could have drawn different inferences"

Welcome-American Fertilizer Co.

91 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding a presumption that a person obtained a gun through interstate commerce based on proof of past convictions to be unreasonable

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

Holding that "if the findings of the Board are supported by evidence the courts are not free to set them aside even though the Board could have drawn different inferences"