Entergy Operations Incorporated

6 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc.
102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 55 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB was not conducting "improper pre-trial discovery" by issuing investigative subpoenas because it "was merely exercising its congressionally authorized investigative powers, nothing more."
National Labor Relations v. Carolina Food Pro
81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996) Cited 17 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that a court should enforce an NLRB subpoena "if the information sought is relevant" and "described with sufficient particularly"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. ex rel. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Dutch Boy, Inc.
606 F.2d 929 (10th Cir. 1979) Cited 34 times
Determining that a cross-application was not a compulsory counterclaim, and that the district court correctly dismissed the cross-application for lack of jurisdiction after considering federal law
E.E.O.C. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co.
711 F.2d 780 (7th Cir. 1983) Cited 26 times
Rejecting claim of undue burden where company "made no showing that enforcement of the subpoena would threaten the normal operation of its business"
N.L.R.B. v. Frederick Cowan and Company
522 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1975) Cited 15 times
Emphasizing that the primary requirement for enforcement is that the evidence or testimony relate to a matter under investigation or in question
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
117 F.2d 692 (10th Cir. 1941) Cited 25 times
In Cudahy Packing, supra, we held that the only limitation "upon the power of the Board to compel the production of documentary or oral evidence is that it must relate to or touch the matter under investigation or in question.

Entergy Operations Incorporated

6 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc.

Holding that the NLRB was not conducting "improper pre-trial discovery" by issuing investigative subpoenas because it "was merely exercising its congressionally authorized investigative powers, nothing more."

National Labor Relations v. Carolina Food Pro

Noting that a court should enforce an NLRB subpoena "if the information sought is relevant" and "described with sufficient particularly"

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. ex rel. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Dutch Boy, Inc.

Determining that a cross-application was not a compulsory counterclaim, and that the district court correctly dismissed the cross-application for lack of jurisdiction after considering federal law

E.E.O.C. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co.

Rejecting claim of undue burden where company "made no showing that enforcement of the subpoena would threaten the normal operation of its business"

N.L.R.B. v. Frederick Cowan and Company

Emphasizing that the primary requirement for enforcement is that the evidence or testimony relate to a matter under investigation or in question

Cudahy Packing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

In Cudahy Packing, supra, we held that the only limitation "upon the power of the Board to compel the production of documentary or oral evidence is that it must relate to or touch the matter under investigation or in question.