Case law

Kraus v. Board of County Road Commissioners

364 F.2d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 1966

As well said by Judge Maris in Milbert v. … Sperry Rand Corp. v. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., 272 F.2d 29 (C.A.2); United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784 (C.A.9); Milbert v.

Brown-Forman Corp. v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission

883 F.2d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 1989

UPON CONSIDERATION of the decision of that Court vacating the prior decision of this court, it is ordered that this cause be REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings in light of Healy v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Pinkerton's, Inc.

621 F.2d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 1980

Conflicting inferences are for the Board to resolve. See 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); NLRB v. … See Argus Optics v. NLRB, 515 F.2d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 1975). The Board or the Hearing Officer has the power to revoke a subpoena. See Herman Brothers Pet Supply, Inc. v.

Buzenius v. National Labor Relations Board

191 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 13, 1999

This case is before us again on remand from the Supreme Court, see United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. … . —, 119 S.Ct. 442 , 142 L.Ed.2d 397 (1998), for reconsideration in light of its decision in Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33 , 119 S.Ct. 292 , 142 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998).

Yeiser v. United States Board & Paper Co.

107 F. 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 1901

by Browne and Stuart from the Leonard Paper-Box Board Company to the United States Board and Paper Company; and whereas, it is for the best interests of the company to further its business in purchasing the same; therefore … Browne, as president of the United States Board & Paper Company, gave that company’s check on the same hank to Browne and Stuart for $85,000.

National Labor Relations Board v. Baja's Place

733 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 1984

First, the Board’s determination that chief cook Brown was a supervisor is alleged as error. … Therefore, the Board’s findings as to these violations are supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld. NLRB v. Brown, 546 F.2d 690 (6th Cir.1976). See also, e.g., Charge Card Ass’n v.

Kennedy Mall, Ltd. v. Brown Group Retail, Inc.

103 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 2004

Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130 , 509 N.E.2d 411, 413 (1987). … As Kennedy Mall acknowledges, the Brown Group was not otherwise in default at the time it sent the notice. Kennedy Mall’s reliance on Lake Ridge Academy v.

Lundy v. Michigan State Prison Board

181 F.2d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 1950

He was found guilty by the Parole Board of violating his parole and, as a penalty, the maximum term of his original sentence which expired September 5, 1948, was made effective. … Canfield v. Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles, 280 Mich. 305 , 273 N.W. 578 . Campare In re Holton, 304 Mich. 534, 539 , 8 N.W.2d 628 ; In re Davis, 312 Mich. 154, 155 , 20 N.W.2d 141 .

Board of County Commissioners v. Burson

127 F.3d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

Id. § 49-2-201(c) (upheld as constitutional by County of Shelby v. McWherter, 936 S.W.2d 923, 934-36 (Tenn.App.1996), appeal denied (Oct. 28, 1996)). … The Tennessee legislature therefore enacted subsection (e) to ensure that members of county school boards like Shelby County’s would live in the county outside the city, the area served by the county school board.

Ali v. Tennessee Board of Pardon & Paroles

431 F.3d 896 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 2005

Muhammad Ali v. … See Brock v. Howes, No. 03-2105, 96 Fed. Appx. 968, 969 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2004) (relying upon Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133, 1138 (10th Cir. 2003), and Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 2000)).

Jacobson v. Cincinnati Board of Education

961 F.2d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 1992

Bronson v. Board of Educ., 604 F.Supp. 68 (S.D. Ohio 1984). … Kromnick v. School Dist., 739 F.2d 894 (3d Cir.1984) (citing Regents of the Univ. of Cal v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Pinkerton's, Inc.

428 F.2d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 4, 1970

Co. v. N.L.R.B., supra. In N.L.R.B. v. … In N.L.R.B. v.

Board of Commerce v. Security Trust Co.

225 F. 454 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 30, 1915

Justice Brown said: ‘•When a negative is averred in pleading, or plaintiff's case depends upon tlie establishment oi! a negative, and the means oi proving the fact are equally within the control oi! … The Board, in its contract, was acting in a trust capacity.

Board of County Commissioners v. Burson

121 F.3d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 1997

Article XI, § 17; Southern v. Beeler, 183 Tenn. 272 , 195 S.W.2d 857, 865 (1946). … Id. at 93 (citing Dunn v.

Versatube Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

492 F.2d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 1974

ORDER The case is before the Court upon the petition of Versatube Corporation to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board and upon the cross-petition of the Board to enforce the order. … These findings of fact justify the legal conclusions reached by the Board. Accordingly, it is ordered that the order of the Board be, and hereby is, enforced.

National Labor Relations Board v. Strippers, Inc.

471 F.2d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 1973

Respondent failed to answer the unfair labor practice charge filed before the Board as required by Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. … It is therefore ordered that the Board’s application for the entry of summary judgment be and is hereby granted and the Board’s order be and is hereby enforced.

National Labor Relations Board v. Alside, Inc.

192 F.2d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 26, 1951

It is true that employees acting individually may assert their rights before the Board without the restrictions of Sec. 9(h). N. L. R. B. v. Augusta Chemical Co., 5 Cir., 187 F.2d 63 ; N. L. R. B. v. … B. v. Highland Park Mfg.

Clevenger v. Oak Ridge School Board

744 F.2d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 1984

Law Rep. 404 Harold Richard CLEVENGER b/n/f Sharon Hamaker, natural parent, and Harold Richard Clevenger, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OAK RIDGE SCHOOL BOARD, Dr. Robert J. … The Brown School, which Richard's parents believe is the correct placement for their child, costs about $88,000 a year. That is, without doubt, a great deal of money. Our decisions in Roncker ex rel. Roucker v.

Moore v. Detroit School Reform Board

293 F.3d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 12, 2002

Doe v. … FCC v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Plaskolite, Inc.

309 F.2d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 7, 1962

B. v. … (Citations) As we said of orders of the Board in N. L. R. B. v.