§

West Point Manufacturing Co.

141 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1963)
West Point Manufacturing Co.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Labor Board v. Steelworkers

    357 U.S. 357 (1958)   Cited 72 times
    In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."

  3. United States v. Lustman

    258 F.2d 475 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 155 times
    In United States v. Lustman, 258 F.2d 475, 477 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 880, 79 S.Ct. 118, 3 L.Ed. 2d 109 (1958), although the court found that a convincing showing of prejudice in the preparation of his case had not been made, the defendant was subject to the ignominy and psychological burden of a public indictment pending for 4 years.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Puerto Rico Rayon Mills, Inc.

    293 F.2d 941 (1st Cir. 1961)   Cited 22 times
    Enforcing an order based on a theory of violation not alleged but fully litigated

  5. Northern Virginia Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    300 F.2d 168 (4th Cir. 1962)   Cited 21 times

    No. 8450. Argued January 8, 1962. Decided March 13, 1962. Henry St. J. FitzGerald, Arlington, Va. (Tolbert, Lewis FitzGerald, Arlington, Va., on the brief), for petitioner. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges

  6. N.L.R.B. v. E B Brewing Company

    276 F.2d 594 (6th Cir. 1960)   Cited 16 times
    In NLRB v. E B Brewing Co., 276 F.2d 594, 600 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 908, 81 S.Ct. 1083, 6 L.Ed.2d 234 (1961), our court held that retroactive application of a change of policy should not occur where it will "work hardship upon a party altogether out of proportion to the public ends to be accomplished," citing NLRB v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 195 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1952).

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transportation Company

    308 F.2d 279 (4th Cir. 1962)   Cited 13 times

    No. 8497. Argued March 22, 1962. Decided September 4, 1962. Robert Sewell, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Melvin Pollack, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for petitioner. Ernest W. Machen, Jr., Charlotte, N.C. (J.W. Alexander, Jr., and Blakeney, Alexander Machen, Charlotte, N.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and

  8. National Labor Rel. Board v. I.B.S. Mfg. Co.

    210 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1954)   Cited 15 times

    No. 14545. February 23, 1954. Rehearing Denied March 26, 1954. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L.R.B., George J. Bott, General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Louis Schwartz, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Leslie Darden, New Albany, Miss., Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., G. Maynard Smith (of Wilson, Branch Smith), Atlanta, Ga., Fred B. Smith, Ripley, Miss., for respondents. Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Texas Natural

    253 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    No. 16665. March 18, 1958. Stephen Leonard, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., William J. Avrutis, Atty., Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. C.A. Kothe, W.H. Eyssen, Jr., Tulsa, Okla., for respondent. Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges. JONES, Circuit Judge. Since so much in this case is dependent upon the factual situation, it becomes necessary to relate the chain of events in some detail. The respondent, Texas