24 Cited authorities

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council
467 U.S. 837 (1984) Cited 16,009 times 500 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,557 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 "
Skidmore v. Swift Co.
323 U.S. 134 (1944) Cited 3,742 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the rulings, interpretations and opinions of the Administrator" of the statute in question, "while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority," were nonetheless available for guidance to the extent they had the "power to persuade"
Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
482 U.S. 27 (1987) Cited 364 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 425 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization
19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) Cited 640 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local Union No. 103, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers
434 U.S. 335 (1978) Cited 286 times
Affirming a cease and desist order issued by the National Labor Relations Board to a striking, uncertified union, which the union alleged was inconsistent with a prior ruling of the agency
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.
494 U.S. 775 (1990) Cited 175 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board has "considerable deference" in determining the legal rule to apply and should be upheld "as long as it is rational and consistent with the Act"
United States v. Shimer
367 U.S. 374 (1961) Cited 385 times
In Shimer, the Pennsylvania law requiring a judicial determination of value before pursuing a deficiency judgment was directly in conflict with the federal regulations directing the VA to establish the fair market value, apply that to the loan amount outstanding, and then pursue the deficiency amount.
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 493 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

BOLING v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

24 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

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 rulings, interpretations and opinions of the Administrator" of the statute in question, "while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority," were nonetheless available for guidance to the extent they had the "power to persuade"

Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors

Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

Affirming a cease and desist order issued by the National Labor Relations Board to a striking, uncertified union, which the union alleged was inconsistent with a prior ruling of the agency

Holding that Board has "considerable deference" in determining the legal rule to apply and should be upheld "as long as it is rational and consistent with the Act"

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