Cromwell Printery Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Leedom v. Kyne

    358 U.S. 184 (1958)   Cited 727 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to strike down agency orders made in excess of the agency's delegated powers
  2. Vitarelli v. Seaton

    359 U.S. 535 (1959)   Cited 511 times
    Holding that, although Congress gave the Secretary of Interior absolute discretion to terminate an employee in the name of national security, the Secretary was nevertheless required to follow its own procedural rules when making such a determination
  3. Campbell v. United States

    365 U.S. 85 (1961)   Cited 243 times
    Finding that typed interview report prepared by FBI agent based on notes taken during a pretrial meeting with a government witness may qualify as Jencks Act statements under subsection (e), if it was adopted by the witness, or subsection (e), if the report closely followed notes that included verbatim statements
  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
  5. Wausau Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    377 F.2d 369 (7th Cir. 1967)   Cited 21 times

    No. 15840. April 11, 1967. Richard P. Tinkham, of Smith, Puchner, Tinkham Smith, Wausau, Wis., for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin H. Reifin, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and KILEY, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. The Wausau Steel Corporation

  6. Consumers Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    113 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1940)   Cited 56 times
    In Consumers Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38, 41, we considered and rejected the argument that no immediate and direct effect upon interstate commerce follows a labor controversy which curtails the employer's activity when its products are sold to an intervening private agency over whom the employer has no authority or control. It was said in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 214, 83 L. Ed. 126, "it is the effect upon interstate or foreign commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion."
  7. Kansas Milling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    185 F.2d 413 (10th Cir. 1950)   Cited 36 times

    No. 4036. November 9, 1950. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1950. George Siefkin, Wichita, Kan. (Carl T. Smith, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Washington D.C., and Leonard S. Kimmell, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent. Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges. HUXMAN, Circuit Judge. This case is here on the petition of the Kansas Milling