Case law

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Helvering

112 F.2d 205 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 15, 1940

It was argued in Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. … An attempt is made to distinguish Brown & Sons Lumber Co., v.

Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Southern Airways, Intervenor

442 F.2d 730 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 1970

The Board must consider and make a relative determination and evaluation of all pertinent factors.” Braniff Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 399, 402 , 379 F.2d 453, 462 (1967). … Delta Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 46 , 51, 228 F.2d 17 , 22 (1955). See also Easton Publishing Co. v. FCC, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 33 , 175 F.2d 344 (1949); Johnston Broadcasting Co. v.

New York Rehabilitation Care Management, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

506 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 30, 2007

LLC v. … “Our review of the Board’s factual conclusions is ‘highly deferential,’” Perdue Farms, Inc. v. NLRB, 144 F.3d 830, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting LCF, Inc. v. NLRB, 129 F.3d 1276, 1281 (D.C.

Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board

735 F.2d 1384 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1984

In NLRB v. … NLRB v. WTVJ, Inc., 268 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1959) (“Even absent an exception, the Board is not compelled to act as a mere rubber stamp for its [ALJ].”); see Hedstrom Co. v.

Corrections Corp. of America v. National Labor Relations Board

234 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

Passaic Daily News v. NLRB, 786 F.2d 1543, 1550 (D.C.Cir.1984) (quoting Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 420 F.2d 1296, 1300 (D.C.Cir.1969)). … MECO Corp. v. NLRB, 986 F.2d 1434, 1436 (D.C.Cir.1993) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971)).

Drug Plastics & Glass Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

30 F.3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

See Land Air Delivery, Inc. v. … (footnotes omitted); NLRB v.

Lang v. Wood

92 F.2d 211 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 1937

See Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498 , 16 S.Ct. 631 , 40 L.Ed. 780 ; Yaselli v. Goff (C.C.A.) 12 F.(2d) 396 , 56 A.L.R. 1239 ; De Arnaud v. Ainsworth, 24 App.D.C. 167 , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 163; Farr v. … Valentine, 38 App.D.C. 413 , Ann.Cas.l913C, 821; Brown v. Rudolph, 58 App.D.C. 116 , 25 F.(2d) 546 ; Mellon v. Brewer, 57 App.D.C. 126 , 18 F.(2d) 168 , 53 A.L.R. 1519 , and cases therein cited.

Consolidated Delivery & Logistics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

63 F. App'x 520 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 16, 2003

We owe deference to the Board’s judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence, Universal Camera Corp. v. … NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 374-75 , 118 S.Ct. 818 , 139 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998), and it is not otherwise inconsistent with the law, NLRB v.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Surface Transportation Board

628 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 2010

Because the Board’s decision “articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made,” N. Am. Freight Car Ass’n v. STB, 529 F.3d 1166, 1170- 71 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting PPL Mont., LLC v. … Co. v. STB, 609 F.3d 432, 438 (D.C. Cir. 2010); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Deference is particularly high in rate disputes, where “the Board acts at the zenith of its powers.” Id. (quoting Burlington N. R.R. v.

Hadigian v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System

612 F.2d 586 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1980

612 F.2d 586 198 U.S.App.D.C. 91 Hadigian v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System No. 79-1216 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 1/29/80 D.C.D.C., 463 F.Supp. 437 AFFIRMED

United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. O'shea

5 F.2d 123 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 1925

Jeremiah O’Shea, as plaintiff, secured a verdict in the lower court against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation in the sum of $25,000, as damages for personal injuries sustained by him on January … A.) 294 F. 641 ; Gould Coupler Co. v. Emergency Fleet Corp. (D. C.) 261 F. 716 ; Haines v. Lone Star Shipbuilding Co., 266 Pa. 92 , 110 A. 788 ; Eichberg v. Emergency Fleet Corporation, 51 App. D.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

487 F.2d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 1973

See NLRB v. Granite State Joint Board, supra; id. at 218, 93 S.Ct. 385 , 34 L.Ed.2d 422 (Mr. … Scofield v. NLRB, supra, 394 U.S. at 443 , 89 S.Ct. at 1159 , 22 L.Ed.2d 385 . To be sure, the Labor Board is entitled to great deference when it interprets the act it administers. See, e. g., Brooks v.

Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

269 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 6, 2001

Hel- ton v. NLRB, 656 F.2d 883 (D.C. … The Board did not explain why an employee's "right to distribute" literature, see NLRB v. Magnavox Co., 415 U.S. 322, 325-26 (1974); Republic Aviation v.

State Water Control Board v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

600 F.2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 7, 1979

600 F.2d 281 194 U.S.App.D.C. 401 State Water Control Board v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission No. 78-1671 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 6/7/79 1 D.C.D.C. AFFIRMED

George A. Hormel and Company v. National Labor Relations Board

962 F.2d 1061 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 1992

If he did not, then, as the Board held, Hormel committed an unfair labor practice by discharging him. Cf. NLRB v. … Because there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion to the contrary, see Universal Camera Corp. v.

Essex Valley Visiting Nurses Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board

455 F. App'x 5 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 21, 2012

817 (2004), enforced NLRB v. … Nov. 18, 2005), others because petitioners’ contentions that the Board decision under review lacked substantial evidence, was an abuse of discretion, or was arbitrary, are without merit.

Roussel v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System

670 F.2d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 23, 1981

670 F.2d 1235 216 U.S.App.D.C. 416 Roussel v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System 81-1546 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit 9/23/81 Fed.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Civil Aeronautics Board

667 F.2d 181 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 30, 1981

See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. … Pilots Ass’n, Internat’l v.

Randell Warehouse of Arizona, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

252 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

It is our responsibility to examine carefully both the Board’s findings and its reasoning....’” General Elec. Co. v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 627, 630 (D.C.Cir.1997) (quoting Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. … Inc. v. NLRB, 44 F.3d 1010, 1016 (D.C.Cir.1995); *449 accord Gilbert v.

No. 93-1767

50 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 312 N.L.R.B. 444 , 445, 1993 WL 382495 (1993) ("Brown & Sharpe II") (quoting Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 220, 228 (D.C.Cir.1977)). … See, e.g., Hohri v.