Case law

Teamsters Local Unions 745, 47, 886, 523, 270, 5, 568, 667 & 891 v. National Labor Relations Board

370 F.2d 226 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1966

V. Braswell, all herein referred to as Bras-well. The latter would have us set aside the order based on the Board’s decision that Braswell had violated Section 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. … Petitions for review are denied, and Order of the Board is enforced.

Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez

745 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 14, 2014

Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 455 (D.C.Cir.1999) (even when there is a “significant change in duties or responsibilities ... there must still be some kind of injury for a federal employee to state a claim”). … Rich v.

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. National Van Lines, Inc.

613 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1979

Brown-Pacifíc-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 508 , 71 S.Ct. 470 , 95 L.Ed. 483 (1951); Evening Star Newspaper Co. v. Kemp, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 91-92 , 533 F.2d 1224, 1226-1227 (1976); Associated Indemnity Corp. v. … But see Pettus v. American Airlines, Inc., supra note 20, 587 F.2d at 628-629 . . The facts of Boughman are set out in the Board’s opinion, Ekar v.

Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station & Platform Workers' Union Local 705 v. National Labor Relations Board

820 F.2d 448 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 1987

We accept the Board’s factual findings as to Local 705’s intentions, however, because they are amply supported by evidence on the record, see NLRB v. … The Administrative Law Judge, whose recommendation the Board declined to adopt, had determined that under Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v.

Local 705, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

307 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 19, 1962

Local 705 and its agents petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued February 20, 1961 ( 130 NLRB 558 ). The Board cross-petitions for enforcement. … The evidence supports the Board’s findings and the findings support the order. It is undisputed that picketing had continued more than 30 days.

Cheryl Taylor v. US Department of Agriculture

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 2, 2011

Before: BROWN, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges. … In Bell v.

Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 of International Union of Operating Engineers v. National Labor Relations Board

266 F.2d 905 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 1959

Industry, 116 N.L.R.B. 119 (1956), and language in N.L.R.B. v. … This is an area of interpretation into which we should follow the Board. N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 128-129 , 64 S.Ct. 851 , 88 L.Ed. 1170 ; N.L.R.B. v.

Wiley v. Glassman

511 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 14, 2007

In October 1999, USIA was abolished and certain sections reconstituted as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (“BBG”). See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6531-6553. … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

Melvin W. Coles v. General Howard W. Penny, Director, Defense Mapping Agency

531 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 23, 1976

19, 1972, the Board held that appellant’s complaint was not supported by the evidence, App. at 39-40, and informed him that “[t]he Civil Service Regulations provide that a decision of the Board is final and that there is … Co., 456 F.2d 1084, 1085 (3d Cir. 1972) (en banc), on remand, 56 F.R.D. 82 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff'd without opinion, 474 F.2d 1340 (3d Cir. 1973); Harris v. National Tea Co., 454 F.2d 307, 309 (7th Cir. 1971). 10 . Brown v.

Potomac Electric Power Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenor

702 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 1983

Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 384-85 , 58 S.Ct. 963, 967 , 82 L.Ed. 1408 (1938); Refractarios Monterrey, S.A. v. Ferro Corp., 606 F.2d 966 (Cust. & Pat.App.1979); Board of Governors v. … See generally British Airways Board v. Port Authority, 564 F.2d 1002, 1010 (2d Cir.1977) (delay can threaten introduction of new technology); Nader v.

Duquesne University v. NLRB

947 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 28, 2020

Brown argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Arnold E. Perl, Joel Buckman, Ira M. Feinberg, and Amy Folsom Kett. Erin E. … We rejected the Board’s decision even though the college never raised the jurisdictional issue before the Board. Carroll Coll. v. NLRB, 558 F.3d 568, 574 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Auster v. Ghana Airways Ltd.

514 F.3d 44 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

Their objective evidence for this belief is that Ghana Airways issued their boarding passes for that flight. … Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578, 580 (1879). Among the requirements for equitable estoppel is false representation. Int’l Org. of Masters v. Brown, 698 F.2d 536, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

Howard Co. v. Baldwin Co.

48 App. D.C. 437 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 3, 1919

Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540 , 35 L. ed. 247, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co. 163 U. S. 169 , 41 L. ed. 118, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1002; Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. … Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540 , 35 L. ed. 247, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. The same rule applies to a corporation.

Maurice Foley Co., Inc. v. Balderson

569 F.2d 132 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 1978

O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 508 , 71 S.Ct. 470, 472 , 95 L.Ed. 483 (1951); Presley v. … V 1975). If the Board departs from that legal standard in reviewing the decision of the ALJ, we must reverse. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v.

National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Reno

216 F.3d 122 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 2000

See, e.g., Brown v. Plant, 131 F.3d 163, 167 (D.C.Cir.1997). II. … FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 1300 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). We must also “exhaust the traditional tools of statutory construction,” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.

United States v. John Fitzgerald Rogers

918 F.2d 207 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 1990

Valentine Brown then testified as an expert witness on drugs. … Welfare v.

American Meat Institute v. United States Department of Agriculture

760 F.3d 18 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 29, 2014

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I agree with Judge Brown that the en banc majority is wrong on the merits and join fully her well-reasoned and compelling dissent. … As Judge Brown notes, the original panel “was wrong to contradict R.J. Reynolds” — and not solely because the panel was wrong on the merits. See Dissent at 11 (citing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v.

United Mine Workers of America v. Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, Carbon Fuel Co., Intervenor

581 F.2d 888 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1978

of the Board is properly the subject of this review. … Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650 , 94 S.Ct. 2431, 2436 , 41 L.Ed.2d 374, 381 (1974), citing Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 183, 194 , 15 L.Ed. 595, 599 (1857). 34 . See, e. g., First Nat’l Bank v.

David B. Lilly Company, Inc., and Delaware Fastener Corporation v. The Renegotiation Board

521 F.2d 315 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 20, 1975

While this appeal was pending the Su *316 preme Court on April 28, 1975 decided Renegotiation Board v. … We accordingly remand *317 the case to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion and the decision in Renegotiation Board v.

Local Union No. 2338, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

499 F.2d 542 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 1974

The union complains, and with reason in our view, that this is far too cryptic a conclusion to make judicial review of the Board’s action meaningful. See NLRB v. … C & C Plywood Corp., 413 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Rish Equipment Co., 407 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning Co., 389 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1968); NLRB v.