Case law

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Transfer Company

977 F.2d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 1992

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. JONES TRANSFER COMPANY, Respondent. No. 92-6107. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Oct. 8, 1992. … The remaining payments shall be due in the Regional Office of the Seventh Region of the Board on or before the last day of each consecutive month until the full amount is paid.

National Labor Relations Board v. Pic-Air, Inc.

977 F.2d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 1992

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PIC-AIR, INC., Respondent. No. 92-6081. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Oct. 8, 1992. … Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2400, Atlanta, Georgia 30323-3301, Telephone 404-841-2886.

Merchants' Ins. Co. of Newark v. Buckner

98 F. 222 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 1899

In State v. … Tillson v. Robbins, 68 Me. 295 ; Dexter v. Spear, 4 Mason, 115 , Fed. Cas. No. 3,867; Smart v. Blanchard, 42 N. H. 151; Adams v. Lawson, 17 Grat. 250; McGregor v. Thwaites, 4 Dowl. & R. 695; Thorley v.

United States v. Coleman Herbert Dudley

436 F.2d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1971

Initially, defendant was classified by his local board as 1-A. An appeal to the state appeal board followed and the *1058 appeal board tentatively decided that defendant should be classified 1-0. … It is obvious that the attempt to subpoena the appeal board members was done in the hope that the testimony they would give would rebut the curative presumption of de novo review. Landau v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Allied Riggers, Inc.

785 F.2d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 1986

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. … Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 3003, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3663.

Crawford v. Benzie-Leelanau District Health Department Board of Health

636 F. App'x 261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 15, 2016

of the term “shall” creates “an obligation”), from terms such as “may,” Brown v. … See Brown, 214 F.3d at 721-22. Therefore, it is not a promise. See id. Because there is no promise, “there is nothing to enforce.” See Rood, 507 N.W.2d at 607.

Zolton Ferency v. Richard H. Austin, Secretary of State Bernard Apol, Director, Elections Division, Department of State and Board of State Canvassers

666 F.2d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 7, 1981

BAILEY BROWN, Circuit Judge. … CSC v.

Michigan Academy Of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Michigan

728 F.2d 326 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 1984

Before JONES, Circuit Judge, and PECK and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judges. JOHN W. … Group 2 consisted of specialists and board certified specialists or board eligible specialists.

Robin Laderach v. U-Haul of Northwestern Ohio and Robert Gilray

207 F.3d 825 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2000

Burns v. City of Columbus, 91 F.3d 836, 844 (6th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis also applies to “failure to promote” discrimination claims. See Brown v. … See Cesaro v.

Frederick W. Tyrrell v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

248 F.3d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2001

Co. v. Pub. Util. … Comm’n of Cal., 647 F.Supp. 1220, 1222 (N.D.Cal.1986), aff 'd, 820 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (holding that a comparable California regulation was a safety provision based on its purpose); Brown v.

United States v. Jay Nagy

760 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2014

We addressed the same issue in United States v. Brown, 443 F. … Brown gives no good reason for making this case the first.

Vicki Steiner v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service

354 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 8, 2003

See Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … Id. at 560-61 (and cases therein); see also Brown v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Interiors Unlimited, Inc.

983 F.2d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERIORS UNLIMITED, INC., Respondent. No. 92-6418. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Dec. 8, 1992. Before RALPH B. … Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 300, Detroit, Michigan 48226-2569, Telephone 313--226--3219.

National Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Beef Company

960 F.2d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 14, 1992

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO BEEF COMPANY, Respondent. No. 92-5398. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 14, 1992. Before ALAN E. … The remaining four payments, totaling $25,000 each shall be due in the Regional Office of the Seventh Region of the Board on or before August 1, 1992, August 1, 1993, August 1, 1994 and August 1, 1995.

National Labor Relations Board v. Vantage Electric, Inc.

991 F.2d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 1993

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. VANTAGE ELECTRIC, INC., Respondent. No. 93-5240. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 30, 1993. … Before NORRIS and SILER, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge. 1 This cause was submitted upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board for summary entry of a judgment against Respondent, Vantage Electric

Geier v. Sundquist

372 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 2004

The district court found that six years elapsed after Brown v. … Although Broum, v. Board had been decided 14 years before, this case involved higher education and the law was unsettled.

Big Branch Resources, Inc. v. John Ogle

737 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 17, 2013

Standard of Review In reviewing an appeal from the Board, we review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo. Paducah Marine Ways v. Thompson, 82 F.3d 130, 133 (6th Cir. 1996). … While we will not vacate the Board’s decision unless the Board has committed legal error or exceeded its scope of review, Jonida Trucking, Inc. v.

Lucas Burgess v. Gene Fischer

735 F.3d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2013

Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cnty., 390 F.3d 890, 897 (6th Cir. 2004). Second, we determine whether the defendant had a “‘sufficiently culpable state of mind’” in denying medical care under the subjective prong. Brown v. … However, Plaintiffs make no argument on appeal that a statutory exception applies to the Board—so that issue is not before us. No. 12-4191 Burgess, et al. v. Fischer, et al.

Aeroquip-Vickers, Inc. And Subsidiaries, F/k/a Trinova Corp. And Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

347 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

.”); Brown v. … Brown, 782 F.2d at 563-564 .

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Zantop Air Transport Corp.

394 F.2d 36 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 1968

Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 340 U.S. 416 , 71 S.Ct. 373 , 95 L.Ed. 389 (1951); Fowler v. … Mills v. Green, supra; Heitmuller v. Stokes, supra; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 , 43 S.Ct. 263 , 67 L.Ed. 620 (1923); Amalgamated Ass’n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees, etc. v.