Case law

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Sagamore Shirt Company, D/B/A Spruce Pine Manufacturing Co.

365 F.2d 898 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 1966

365 F.2d 898 AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. … deny enforcement to that portion of the Board order directed against the notice. 48 V.

Amarillo General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 577 v. National Labor Relations Board

273 F.2d 519 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 1959

The Board seeks enforcement of the order. The material facts are not in dispute. … If they are raised, they should be dealt with in the first instance by the [Board].” Federal Broadcasting System v. Federal Commun. Comm’n, 1956, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 293 , 298, 231 F.2d 246, 251 .

Robert E. Hyser v. George J. Reed, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, John Thomas Jatoft v. R. A. Chappell, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, James Charles Whitling v. George J. Reed, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, Robert Thompson v. United States Board of Parole, John T. Neiswenter, Jr. v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, Andrew Louis Fitzpatrick v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, William Francis Leroy Williamson v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, Larry T. Jamison v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, United States Board of Parole

318 F.2d 225 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 11, 1963

HYSER, Appellant, v. George J. REED, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, Appellee. John Thomas JATOFT, Appellant, v. R. A. CHAPPELL, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, et al., Appellees. … James Charles WHITLING, Appellant, v. George J. REED, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, et al., Appellees. Robert THOMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE et al., Appellees. John T.

Cobell Ex Rel. Cobell v. Jewell

234 F. Supp. 3d 126 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2017

See Cobell v. Norton, 231 F. … See Cobell v. Norton, 407 F.

United States ex rel. Rodriguez v. Bowyer

25 App. D.C. 121 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 7, 1905

Roberts v. United States, 13 App. D. C. 38, 46, 176 U. S. 221, 231 , 44 L. ed. 443, 447, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376. … Brown v. Root, 18 App. D. C. 239; United States ex rel. Edwards v. Root, 22 App. D. C. 419, upon which the respondents rely.

Williams v. District of Columbia Department of General Services

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2024

Simpson were on the brief for appellee Public Employee Relations Board. Before EASTERLY, MCLEESE, and SHANKER, Associate Judges. … (quoting Brown v. Plant, 157 A.2d 289, 291 (D.C. 1960))); D.C. App. R. 16(b) (allowing parties to supplement the record “at any time” by stipulation).

International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, McLoughlin Manufacturing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Intervenor

463 F.2d 907 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 8, 1972

P 12,751 INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. McLOUGHLIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. … See, e. g., NLRB v. Brown-Dunkin Co., 10 Cir., 287 F.2d 17, 20 (1961). Indeed, "[n]o genuine bargaining * * * can be conducted where [the] decision has already been made and implemented."

Frett v. Howard University

24 F. Supp. 3d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2014

See, e.g., Brown v. Children’s Nat. Med. … First, if the Board and University are identical parties, then claims against the Board are duplicative of and merge with those against the University. Cf. Campbell v.

Consumers' Ice Co. v. Burnet

50 F.2d 341 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 4, 1931

The Board found as a fact that they were executed on or about the date they bore. This was sufficient, for whether they were executed upon that date or later is of no significance. Stange v. United States, 282 U. … Ed. 335 ; Aiken v. Burnet, 282 U. S. 277 , 51 S. Ct. 148 , 75 L. Ed. 339 ; Brown & Sons Co. v. Burnet, 282 U. S. 283 , 51 S. Ct. 140 , 75 L. Ed. 343 .

In Re Stanton

470 A.2d 272 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1983

The Board recommends suspension for a year and a day. We adopt the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED by the court that respondent John J. … In re Brown, Bar Docket Nos. 305-77, et al.; In re Guhring, Bar Docket No. 398-78; In re Mizel, Bar Docket No. 77-74, all also involve simple neglect in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and resulted in public censures.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw-Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Preston Products Company, Inc., Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Preston Products Company, Inc., Preston Products Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

373 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 25, 1967

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Preston Products Company, Inc., Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PRESTON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc., Respondent. … PRESTON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 20137. No. 20185. No. 20301. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. January 25, 1967. Mr.

Citisteel Usa, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

53 F.3d 350 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 1995

Workers v. NLRB, 980 F.2d 774, 778 (D.C.Cir.1992). “Nevertheless, this court is a reviewing court and does not function simply as the Board’s enforcement arm. … It is our responsibility to examine carefully both the Board’s findings and its reasoning....” Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d 35 , 42 (D.C.Cir.1980).

Nelson v. B. Simon Hardware Co.

145 F.2d 386 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 30, 1944

Cf Brown v. Civil Aeronautics Authority, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 172 , where, under conditions far less compelling, like action was taken. Remanded with instructions as above. L. P. Steuart & Bro. v. … United States v. Two Hundred Barrels of Whiskey, 95 U.S. 571 , 24 L.Ed. 491 ; Campbell v. Galeno Chemical Co., 281 U.S. 599 , 50 S.Ct. 412 , 74 L.Ed. 1063 ; Wallace v. Cutten, supra [ 298 U.S. 229 , 56 S.Ct. 753 , 80 L.

Local Lodge No. 1417, International Association of MacHinists Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

296 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 18, 1961

This case presents a petition by a union to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board and a motion by the Board for a decree of enforcement of its order. … In this respect we disagree with the Board.

Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 745 v. National Labor Relations Board

389 F.2d 553 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1968

NLRB v. … The union contends that, in deciding whether to deny reinstatement, this weighing process is required by NLRB v. Thayer Co., 213 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1954) and Local 833 etc., v.

Capitol Airways, Inc., and World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Seaboard & Western Airlines, Inc., Intervenor

292 F.2d 755 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 25, 1961

On February 23, 1961, the Board issued a tentative decision to repeal Part 294, but that order is not in issue in this appeal, 3 . Compare Great Lakes Airlines et al. v. … See also Standard Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 29 , 177 F.2d 18 ; Cook Cleland Catalina Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 220 , 195 F.2d 206 . 4 .

Island Architectural Woodwork, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

892 F.3d 362 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 2018

Our review of the Board's decision is "limited." Enter. Leasing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. , 831 F.3d 534 , 542 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Stephens Media, LLC v. … Tanaka Constr., Inc. v.

West v. United States

499 A.2d 860 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1985

See Curry v. United States, 322 A.2d 268, 269 (D.C.1974). In contrast, all the witnesses agreed that Brown did not carry a weapon. … Dean v. United States, supra, 377 A.2d at 427 . There was no evidence that Brown ever got close enough to West to even strike West.

Doe v. Martin

404 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 1975

Thus, in Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U. … Brown, 415 U.S. 724 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). . In California Bankers Assn. v.

Kretchmar v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2014

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … In Brandon, an inmate brought suit alleging that he had a protected libert y interest in having the Parole Board adhere to its own procedures, and that the Board deprived him of due process when it delayed his reparole