Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.52s
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2022
Penson, 526 F.3d at 337. 4 No. 22-5010, United States v. Brown United States v. … Lee, 974 F.3d at 677. 10 No. 22-5010, United States v. Brown (R. 81, Brown Sentencing Hearing, 61).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKessel Food Markets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
868 F.2d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 1989
See NLRB v. Sanford Home for Adults, 669 F.2d 35 (2d Cir.1981); Eisenberg v. … In NLRB v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedWalter Paul Arnold v. Ronald Marshall, Supt., and William J. Brown, Attorney General, State of Ohio
657 F.2d 83 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 1981
On appeal to this court appellant contends that Davis v. … prejudice that the State had suffered would not have been avoided if the petition had been filed earlier. 1 It is clear to us that the United States Magistrate and the District Judge considered and decided this case with Davis v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedNational Labor Relations Board v. Local No. 106, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n
520 F.2d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 1975
In N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. … N.L.R.B., 319 U.S. 533, 539-40 , 63 S.Ct. 1214 , 87 L.Ed. 1568 (1943); Decaturville Sportswear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 406 F.2d 886 , 888-89 (6th Cir. 1969). Enforcement is granted. Cf. Brown v.
Cited 11 timesPublishedMid America Media, Inc., Wtrx-Am v. National Labor Relations Board
663 F.2d 17 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 1981
The Board has filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order. … NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 379 F.2d 172 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 389 U.S. 958 , 88 S.Ct. 338 , 19 L.Ed.2d 364 (1967).
Cited 1 timesPublishedInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 175 v. National Labor Relations Board
760 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 2, 1985
Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 732 F.2d 1288 (6th Cir.1984). The situation referred to in N.L. R.B. v. Norbar, Inc., 752 F.2d 235 (6th Cir.1985), did not occur in these proceedings. … We conclude that the Board properly found this case to be controlled by Sachs Electric Company, 248 NLRB 699 (1980), enforced in relevant part, NLRB v. IBEW, Local 453, 668 F.2d 991 (8th Cir.1982).
Cited 2 timesPublishedNational Labor Relations Board v. Catherine Mcauley Health Center
885 F.2d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 1989
Co. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 66, 67 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 975 , 96 S.Ct. 2176 , 48 L.Ed.2d 799 (1976); Wayne Oakland Bank v. … Lukes Medical Center v. NLRB, 653 F.2d 450, 454 (10th Cir.1981). See also Meijer, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 737, 740 (6th Cir.1977).
Cited 0 timesPublishedJohnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
489 F.2d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 27, 1973
Railroad Retirement Board, 227 F.2d 684, 686 , C.A. 7th. ( 304 F.2d at 428, 429 ) Additionally, in Kington v. … In Williams v.
Cited 41 timesPublishedLincoln Bearing Company and Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company v. National Labor Relations Board
311 F.2d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 1962
B. v. Roberts Brothers, 225 F.2d 58, 60 , C.A.9. In N. L. R. B. v. … Consolidated Edison Co., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 305 U.S. 197, 229 , 59 S.Ct. 206, 217 , 83 L.Ed. 126 . In Universal Camera Corp. v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedUnited States v. Cedric Lamar Brown
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 2024
As Fletcher later testified, when he approached Brown’s car and Brown lowered the No. 23-5983, United States v. Brown window, Fletcher “detected the odor of raw marijuana from the car.” … Brown contains evidence of a crime. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991); United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490, 509–10 (6th Cir. 2001).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedReid Lininger v. St. Marys City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 2020
Plaintiffs’ fathers wrote a letter to Brown to request an appeal. Brown brought the letter to the attention of the Board, but no additional investigation was conducted. Two months later, ODE concluded its investigation. … Marys Board of Education, Brown, Hollman, and Frye. Following discovery in each case, the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims.
Cited 0 timesPublishedReid Lininger v. St. Marys City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 2020
Plaintiffs’ fathers wrote a letter to Brown to request an appeal. Brown brought the letter to the attention of the Board, but no additional investigation was conducted. Two months later, ODE concluded its investigation. … Marys Board of Education, Brown, Hollman, and Frye. Following discovery in each case, the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEvans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District
624 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2010
At its March 2002 meeting, the school board voted unanimously not to renew Evans-Marshall’s contract. She requested an explanation, and the school board sent her No. 09-3775 Evans-Marshall v. … Mayer v. Monroe County Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479 (7th Cir. 2007). And if it is the school board that hires that speech, it can surely “regulate the content of what is or is not expressed,” Rosenberger v.
Cited 73 timesPublishedMapp v. Board of Education of City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee
373 F.2d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 27, 1967
Mapp, their Father and next friend et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 16877. … Here the transfer provisions might have a racial basis, but only during a short transition period, consistent with the Board's judgment on student welfare and the Supreme Court's mandate in Brown v.
Cited 3 timesPublished279 F.2d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 1960
The National Labor Relations Board having on March 11, 1960, petitioned this Court for enforcement of its order of February 6, 1959, directed against the above named Respondent, its officers, agents, successors and assigns … , Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, Division, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, abide by and perform the directions of the Board in said order contained.
Cited 1 timesPublishedVirginia M. Kirsch v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
337 F.2d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 1964
The motion of the petitioners for a stay of the order of the Board is denied. Hamlin Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. … Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 312 F.2d 392 (C.A.10); Associated Securities Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 283 F.2d 773 (C.A.10).
Cited 2 timesPublishedNational Labor Relations Board v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Mansfield, Ohio
455 F.2d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 1972
See, also, NLRB v. … conflicting views. 3 Under NLRB v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedNational Labor Relations Board v. Mercy-Memorial Hospital Corporation
836 F.2d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 1988
Co. v. N.L.R.B., 749 F.2d 362 (6th Cir.1984). … We find the Board's decision to be supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Universal Camera Corp. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLandmark International Trucks, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
775 F.2d 148 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1985
See Landmark International Trucks, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 699 F.2d 815 (6th Cir.1983). … The Board appears never to have considered Whaley’s testimony, though in our first opinion this court disagreed with the Board that Whaley’s testimony was hearsay and considered it in reaching our decision.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNational Labor Relations Board v. Myca Products Division of the Kane Company
352 F.2d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 1965
The Board upheld the election and found that MYCA violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act 1 by refusing to bargain with the union. … The Board considered all of the evidence carefully, some of which was hearsay. There was no evidence that any threats were inspired by the union.
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna