# Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis, D/B/A Suburban Yellow Taxi Company v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · December 22, 1983 · 721 F.2d 366

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471422

## Case

- **Full name:** YELLOW TAXI COMPANY OF MINNEAPOLIS, D/B/A Suburban Yellow Taxi Company, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** December 22, 1983
- **Citations:** 721 F.2d 366; 232 U.S. App. D.C. 131
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wright
- **Judges:** Wright, Bork, MacKinnon
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471422

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing, in our circuit’s first embrace of nonacquiescence, it would be “unwise” to oppose it, “particularly in light of the instances in which positions taken by the Board were first repeatedly rejected by a large number 9 of circuits, then accepted by others, and later acc…
- declining to agree or disagree with criticism of Board but noting that "[a]n agency with nationwide jurisdiction is not required to conform to every interpretation given a statute by a court of appeals"

## Opinion text

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in all of the court’s opinion except for Part IV. I cannot concur with the condemnation of Board behavior contained in that Part. Although a number of circuit courts have voiced similar condemnations of the Board’s practice of adhering to positions even after numerous circuit courts have refused enforcement, see, e.g., Allegheny General Hospital v. NLRB, 608 F.2d 965 , 968-970 (3d Cir.1979); Ithaca College v. NLRB, 623 F.2d 224 , 227-230 (2d Cir.1980), I believe the better position was that taken by the Fifth Circuit when confronted with analogous behavior in S & H Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. OSHRC, 659 F.2d 1273 , 1278-1279 (5th Cir.1981). There the agency “respectfully decline[d] to follow” controlling precedent, arguing “that an administrative agency charged with the duty of formulating uniform and orderly national policy in adjudications is not bound to acquiesce in the views of the U.S. courts of appeals that conflict with those of the agency.” Chief Judge Godbold’s opinion “assume[d] without deciding that the Commission is free to decline to follow decisions of the courts of appeals with which it disagrees, even in cases arising in those circuits” (footnote omitted), but pointed out that a circuit court panel did “not have that freedom but must follow the precedent set by prior panels * * * until and unless they *385 are reversed by the court en banc or by the Supreme Court.” To go beyond Chief Judge Godbold’s view may be unwise, particularly in light of the instances in which positions taken by the Board were first repeatedly rejected by a large number of circuits, then accepted by others, and later accepted by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Charles D. Bonnano Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404 , 102 S.Ct. 720 , 70 L.Ed.2d 656 (1982) (Court upheld Board’s position that had initially been rejected by five circuits and then accepted by two, including one which had previously rejected it); NLRB v. Enterprise Ass’n of Steam Pipefitters, 429 U.S. 507 , 97 S.Ct. 891 , 51 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977) (Court upheld Board’s position that had initially been rejected by five circuits and then accepted by two).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471422. Public record. Not legal advice.