Case law

Doe v. National Transportation Safety Board

642 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 17, 1981

642 F.2d 455 Doe v. National Transportation Safety Board 79-7030 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ninth Circuit 2/17/81 1 N.T.S.B. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED IN PART

Rountree v. National Transportation Safety Board

556 F.2d 588 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 23, 1977

556 F.2d 588 Rountree v. National Transportation Safety Board No. 75-3392 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 3/23/77 1 N.T.S.B. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

Skarperud v. National Transportation Safety Board

544 F.2d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 15, 1976

544 F.2d 526 Skarperud v. National Transportation Safety Board No. 74-2568 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 10/15/76 1 W.D.Wash. AFFIRMED

National Labor Relations Board v. Forrest

142 F.2d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 1944

Upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board for entry of a decree enforcing its order herein, respondent consenting to entry of such decree, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered petition granted and decree filed … and entered enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board and that a certified copy of such decree be forthwith issued to the respective parties.

O'Brien v. Merit Systems Protection Board

665 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 19, 1981

665 F.2d 1053 O'Brien v. Merit Systems Protection Board 80-7132 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ninth Circuit 10/19/81 1 M.S.P.B. AFFIRMED

Catherine Colange v. Railroad Retirement Board

410 F.2d 11 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 1969

PER CURIAM: This is a petition to review the decision of the Railroad Retirement Board, holding that petitioner, on the date of her application for an annuity filed July 23, 1963, was not a “spouse” as that term is defined … The Railroad Retirement Board found on substantial evidence that petitioner had not satisfied any of the three alternatives set forth above. There is no merit to the petition, and the decision is affirmed.

National Labor Relations Board v. Rosebraugh

154 F.2d 58 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 1946

On the hearing of the National Labor Relations Board’s petition for a decree enforcing the order of the Board, we find substantial evidence to support it. The decree prayed for is ordered granted.

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

725 F.2d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 13, 1984

Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman, 714 F.2d 901, 903 (9th Cir.1983); Bumpus v. Clark, 702 F.2d 826, 827 (9th Cir.1983). The Board’s election decision therefore is not moot. … We vacate that portion of the panel’s opinion assuming jurisdiction over the Board’s election decision, overrule Anja Engineering Corp. v.

Kapiolani Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board

581 F.2d 230 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 1978

It is well settled, of course, that the findings of the Board must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, viewing the record as a whole. Universal Camera Corp. v. … This court cannot displace the Board’s choice between two conflicting views, even though this court would have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo. NLRB v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., Lorimar Productions, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

771 F.2d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1985

We will enforce the Board’s order if the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and if the Board correctly applied the law. NLRB v. … (Board has broad discretion in conducting and supervising representation elections). Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to function as more than a mere “rubber stamp” for the. Board’s decisions. NLRB v.

Dycus v. National Labor Relations Board

615 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 22, 1980

No. 172 (1979); American Sunroof/Customcraft, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 665, No. C-78-2371 SC (N.D.Cal. May 25, 1979). … That ground and the usual deference that we afford to the Board’s effort to apply federal labor law to a' novel factual setting lead me to concur in the result reached by the court.

Hall v. California State Personnel Board

554 F.2d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 28, 1977

554 F.2d 1068 Hall v. California State Personnel Board No. 76-1162 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 4/28/77 1 C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED

Tracey Brown v. Attorney General for the State of Nevada

140 F.4th 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

#2 against Brown and it would be “wise to 6 BROWN V. … Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citation omitted). And under the second prong, federal courts must 8 BROWN V. ATTORNEY GEN.

Brown v. Verizon Directories Sales Corp.

151 F. App'x 527 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2005

The district court correctly concluded that Brown’s depression did not qualify as a disability under the ADA because Brown failed to demonstrate that his impairment was “long-term.” 1 See Sanders v. … The record contains no evidence showing that Verizon considered Brown to be disabled. Cf. Hollinan v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 87 F.3d 362, 366 (9th Cir.1996).

National Labor Relations Board v. S.R.D.C., Inc.

45 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 18, 1995

“We must uphold decisions of the Board if its findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and if the Board correctly applied the law.” N.L.R.B. v. … The Board agrees that § 2(11) is disjunctive, but notes that in Walla Walla Union-Bulletin v.

Sever v. National Labor Relations Board

231 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2000

See Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. … See, e.g., Coronet Foods, Inc. v.

Brown v. New York Life Insurance

147 F. App'x 640 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2005

Summary *642 judgment was required here because Brown’s claims are supported solely by bare allegations. See Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir.1995). … Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress No reasonable jury could find that New York Life intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Brown. See Agarwal v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Harrah's Club

362 F.2d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 5, 1966

B. v. Gene Compton’s Corp., 9 Cir., 262 F.2d 653 , 656; N. L. R. B. v. Carpenters Local No. 2133, 9 Cir., 356 F.2d 464 , 465. … It must also be shown that the gambling industry will be substantially prejudiced by Board regulation because racetracks are not similarly regulated. See N. L. R. B. v. Gene Compton’s Corp., supra.

Davis v. California State Personnel Board

22 F. App'x 793 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2001

Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Davis’ section 1983 claims because they are barred by the statute of limitations. Taylor v. … See EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that plaintiff in discrimination case must exhaust EEOC remedies before filing in federal court). AFFIRMED.

Eunice Oritsegbeyiwa Azanor v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General

364 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 2004

Watkins v. INS, 63 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.1995), quoting Jen Hung Ng v. INS, 804 F.2d 534, 538 (9th Cir.1986). Although we review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, Murillo-Espinoza v. … The Board’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995). III.