# National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 22, 1944 · 322 U.S. 111

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419492

## Case

- **Full name:** National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 22, 1944
- **Citations:** 322 U.S. 111; 64 S. Ct. 851; 88 L. Ed. 1170; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1201
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reed
- **Judges:** Reed, Roberts, Rutledge
- **Cited by:** 929 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419492

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the word employee " 'takes color from its surroundings ... in the statute where it appears,' [citations omitted] and derives meaning from the context of that statute, which ‘must be read in the light of the mischief to be corrected and the end to be attained.' "
- noting that U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. CITY OF SEATTLE 43 supervisors have “abandoned the ‘collective security’ of the rank and file voluntarily, because they believed the opportunities thus opened to them to be more valuable to them than such ‘security’”
- discussing the reasons for the presumption of a uniform federal definition of the term “employee” in the National Labor Relations Act

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Reed
concurs in the result. He is of the opinion that the test of coverage for employees is that announced by the Board in the matter of Stockholders Publishing Company, Inc., and Los Angeles Newsboys Local Industrial Union No. 75, C. I. 0., and other similar cases, decided January 9, 1941, 28 N. L. R. B. 1006, 1022-23.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419492. Public record. Not legal advice.