Case law

Davis v. United States

124 F.4th 980 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 2025

However, in Brown, the court “revisited the clear statutory language in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)” and federal court opinions, including this Court’s decision in Landazuri v. Hall, 423 F. … Davis argues that 10 U.S.C. § 858(a) and Bates v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc.

332 F.2d 85 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1964

The Board petitions for enforcement of its order issued against respondent. 1 The Board found that the respondent violated section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 158(a) (1), by unlawfully threatening and interrogating its … In reaching its conclusion as to Manuel Carmona,, the Board found that he was not a supervisor within the meaning of section-2(11) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 152(11) 2 The Board’s order requiring the respondent to cease and

United States Postal Service v. National Labor Relations Board

652 F.2d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 1981

NLRB, supra, at 730, quoting NLRB v. Thor Power Tool Co., 351 F.2d 584, 587 (7th Cir. 1965). See Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, supra; Falcon Plastics Division of B — D Laboratories, Inc. v. … See, e. g., NLRB v. Florida Medical Center, Inc., supra, at 673. Accordingly, we defer to the Board’s judgment that O’Harrow’s and Woods’ conduct was not “indefensible.”

Martin v. Halliburton

601 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2010

Specifically, they are Halliburton; KBR, Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. … Comision de Contratos del Comite Ejecutivo Gen., 923 F.2d 380 , 385 (5th Cir.1991), and quali *388 fied immunity under Title VII, Brown v. Tex. A&M Univ., 804 F.2d 327, 332 (5th Cir.1986). 12 .

United States v. The Board of Education of Valdosta, Georgia

576 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1978

See, e. g., United States v. South Park Independent School Dist., supra. … We note with approval the declaration of this court in United States v.

Henderson v. Fort Worth Independent School District

526 F.2d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 22, 1976

See American Party v. White, 1974, 415 U.S. 767 , 94 S.Ct. 1296 , 39 L.Ed.2d 744 ; Storer v. Brown, 1974, 415 U.S. 724 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 ; Dunn v. … See Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. at 727 n. 2, 94 S.Ct. at 1277. . 9 V.T.C.A., Election Code, art. 5.02 (Supp. 1975).

National Labor Relations Board v. Southwire Company, and Roy Richards

429 F.2d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 1970

The Board urges that the Master’s conclusions were erroneous as a matter of law in light of NLRB v. … See NLRB v. Southwire Company, 5 Cir. 1963, 313 F.2d 648 ; NLRB v. Southwire Company, 5 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 346 ; Southwire Company v. NLRB, 5 Cir. 1967, 383 F.2d 235 ; Southwire Company v.

Michaels v. Brown

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 8, 1999

Michaels filed a pro se complaint against the Department of Veterans Affairs; its Director, Jesse Brown; five employees of the Department, and three vendors who Michaels alleged had supplied the carpeting. … In the amended complaint she named Jesse Brown in his official capacity and two vendors; her substantive claims remained unchanged.

National Labor Relations Board v. Vernon Calhoun Packing Co.

436 F.2d 588 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 6, 1971

See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 966 .

Brown v. Williams

124 F. App'x 907 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2005

Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999). Finally, Brown’s allegation of verbal threats did not state a constitutional claim. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); McFadden v. … See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). In 2000, the district court dismissed as frivolous a prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint by Brown. Brown v. White, No. 2:00-CV-119 (W.D. La.

H. B. Zachry Company v. National Labor Relations Board

377 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 25, 1967

NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 1953, 344 U.S. 344, 350 , 73 S.Ct. 287 , 97 L.Ed. 377 ; NLRB v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 1946, 327 U.S. 385, 387-389 , 66 S.Ct. 553 , 90 L.Ed. 739 ; United States v. L. A. … The Board’s order is Enforced. 1 . 155 N.L.R.B. No. 121, issued Nov. 29,1965.

Hill-Behan Lumber Company v. National Labor Relations Board

396 F.2d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 22, 1968

The certification of Local 291, based on the alleged unfair labor practices, discussed above and arising in the Board case No. 13-CA-6492, is set aside. … We do not reach or in any manner deal with the petitioner’s effort to obtain a review in this case from Board case No. 13-RC-10492.

City Public Service Board, City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through City Public Service Board v. General Electric Company

947 F.2d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1991

See Mayo v. Hyatt Corp., 898 F.2d 47, 49 (5th Cir.1990). … See Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 647-48 (Tex.1988).

National Labor Relations Board v. Plant City Welding and Tank Company, Plant City Welding and Tank Company v. National Labor Relations Board

275 F.2d 859 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 1960

It is well settled that noncompliance of the complaining union may be asserted as a defense to enforcement of a Board order adjudging the respondent guilty of unfair labor practices. National Labor Relations Board v. … Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 1956, 350 U.S. 264 , 76 S.Ct. 383 , 100 L.Ed. 285 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Co., 1951, 341 U.S. 322 , 71 S.Ct. 758 , 95 L.Ed. 969 .

Brown v. Davis

174 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 23, 1999

See Nealy v. Hamilton, 837 F.2d 210, 212 (5th Cir. 1988); Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir. 1994). … In addition, Brown’s conclusional allegations of retaliatory conduct are insufficient to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. See Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1988).

National Labor Relations Board v. Mac Smith Garment Co., Inc

203 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 17, 1953

of the board requiring their reinstatement which is before us for decision. … Footwear, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 203 F. 486 , and cases cited in it at note 3. t

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County

521 F.2d 814 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 1975

521 F.2d 814 Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County 75-1312, 75-1827 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 10/2/75 S.D.Ala., 517 F.2d 1044

Underwater Services, Inc. v. Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc.

376 F.2d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 1967

Smith v. Brow & Root Marine Operators, Inc., W.D.La.1965, 243 F. Supp. 130 . We hold that the district judge was not clearly erroneous in finding Brown & Root’s employees free of negligence. Affirmed.

Brown v. Sudduth

93 F. App'x 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2004

The defendants have not yet answered the complaint, and Brown’s assertions must be taken as true in evaluating the dismissal for failure to state a claim. Morin v. Moore, 309 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2002). … No warrant had been issued for Brown’s arrest. Brown has adequately alleged both the denial of a constitutional right and state action. See Doe v. Rains County Ind. Sch.

National Labor Relations Board v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines

220 F.2d 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 1955

So pointing, it urges upon us: that its actions have been in accordance with our decree, the Board’s actions in contravention thereof; and that the court should enter an order, in effect, directing the Board to forthwith … violation of our decree, and that it did so even more egregiously when it recognized UTE without prior certification by the Board; and that the motion and prayers of the Respondent should be denied, while those of the Board