Case law

Freund Baking Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

165 F.3d 928 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1999

Eastex, Inc. v. … See Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB,  461 U.S. 731, 741 (1983). In support of this argument, the Board points to NAACP v.

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

444 F.2d 969 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 30, 1971

United Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 89 , 155 F.2d 169 (1946). … Lake Central Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 239 F.2d 46 (1956); Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 78 , 259 F.2d 808 (1958); Braniff Airways, Inc. v.

Railway Labor Executives' Association v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

842 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 1988

The Association seeks review of the Board’s decision. In our prior visitation to this case, we vacated the Board’s decision, Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. United States R.R. … RLEA I, 749 F.2d at 860 (citing Bamberger v. Clark, 390 F.2d 485, 488 (D.C.Cir.1968)). 7 . In March 1985, the Board’s General Counsel submitted to the Board a draft proposal reversing his prior position in L-83-79.

Seaboard World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

580 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 1978

580 F.2d 701 188 U.S.App.D.C. 438 Seaboard World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board No. 77-1381 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 7/17/78 1 C.A.B. AFFIRMED

Greater Peoria Airport Authority v. Civil Aeronautics Board

569 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1977

569 F.2d 159 186 U.S.App.D.C. 328 Greater Peoria Airport Authority v. Civil Aeronautics Board No. 76-2055 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 12/5/77 1 C.A.B. AFFIRMED

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

569 F.2d 640 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 28, 1977

Because the Civil Aeronautics Board irrationally limited its diversification inquiry and resulting regulatory measures to the three petitioner airlines, it must, if it persists in this regulatory objective, initiate a new … It is my understanding that in the new proceeding the issue of the existence, source, and scope of the Board’s authority to impose a regulatory program of the kind here involved continues to remain open.

Aviation Consumer Action Project v. Civil Aeronautics Board

505 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 17, 1974

505 F.2d 475 164 U.S.App.D.C. 368 Aviation Consumer Action Project v. Civil Aeronautics Board 73-1926 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit 9/17/74 1 D.C.D.C. REVERSED AND REMANDED

Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, CO v. EPA

72 F.4th 284 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 2023

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). In other words, “retroactive rules alter the past legal consequences of past actions.” Arkema, Inc. v. EPA, 618 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Bowen v. … Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979); see also California v. Texas, 141 S.

Denver S. Cooper v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

977 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 1992

Burns v. United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 701 F.2d 193, 202-03 (D.C.Cir.1983); Peterson v. United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 780 F.2d 1361, 1363 (8th Cir.1985). … See Burns v. United States R.R. Retirement Board, 701 F.2d at 201 . The Board’s conclusion that Cooper should have known that he could not convert his annuity is not supported by substantial evidence.

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

473 F.2d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 1972

the Board’s discretion. … Of the numerous cases so holding, I select as typical the following: Rankin v. State of Florida, 418 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1039 , 90 S.Ct. 1358 , 25 L.Ed.2d 650 (1970); Flynn v.

Sasol North America Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

275 F.3d 1106 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 25, 2002

Id.; see also Medeco Security Locks, Inc. v. NLRB, 142 F.3d 733, 744 (4th Cir.1998); BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 1372, 1375-77 (11th. Cir.1997); Holo-Krome Co. v. … The Wright Line defense is therefore yet another issue the Board must consider on remand. Cf. McQuaide, Inc. v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 47, 50 (D.C.Cir.1998).

United Steel Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fibreboard Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

436 F.2d 908 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1971

-C.I.O. v. N. L. R. B., 116 U.S.App.D.C. 198 , 322 F.2d 411 (1963), affirmed, sub nom. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203 , 85 S.Ct. 398 , 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964). … While on some of the issues we may well have found differently, “[a]s with the Board’s other remedies, the power to order back pay ‘is for the Board to wield, not for the courts.’ NLRB v.

Charlotte Amphitheater Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

82 F.3d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 30, 1996

We begin our analysis by acknowledging that we owe deference to the Board’s choice of remedy. See NLRB v. … See also NLRB v.

800 River Road Operating Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

846 F.3d 378 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 24, 2017

Before: ROGERS, BROWN, and MILLETT, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by BROWN, Circuit Judge. … Notwithstanding this extraordinary deference, the Board’s discretion “has limits.” Int’l Transp. Serv. Inc. v. NLRB, 449 F.3d 160, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

California Cartage Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

822 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 14, 1987

As such, CalCart challenges the Board where perhaps it is strongest before the Court of Appeals; we must affirm the Board if there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding, NLRB v. … See, e.g., Production Workers, Local 707 v. NLRB, 793 F.2d 323 , 333 (D.C.Cir.1986); Carpet, Linoleum, Local 419 v. NLRB, 429 F.2d 747 , 752 (D.C.Cir.1970); Local No. 24, IBT v. NLRB, 266 F.2d 675, 680 (D.C. Cir.1959).

West Texas Utilities Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

206 F.2d 442 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 19, 1953

Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 1944, 143 F.2d 761, 763 . And see National Labor Relations Board v. … National Labor Relations Board v. Trojan Powder Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 337, 340 . 15 .

Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

2 F.3d 1162 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1993

NLRB v. … NLRB v.

Brown v. Government of the District of Columbia

111 F. App'x 616 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 2004

R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.

George Banta Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

686 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 1982

Banta posits the legality of its PRS on the Board decisions in Bio-Science Laboratories, 209 NLRB 796 (1974), and Brown and Root, Inc., 132 NLRB 486 (1961). These cases are inapposite. … Although Brown and Root states that the Board does not require the “displacement” of “old employees” in order to make room for returning unfair labor practice strikers, 132 NLRB at 514 (Initial Decision), nothing in the opinion

NACS v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

746 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 2014

National Bank of Oregon v. … See, e.g., BNSF Railway Co. v. Surface Transportation Board, 526 F.3d 770, 774 (D.C.