§
J-M Co. Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,658 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. U.S. v. Appalachian Power Co.

    311 U.S. 377 (1940)   Cited 341 times
    Holding that Congress had the authority, under the commerce clause, to require private riparian land owners to obtain a license prior to construction of dams, even where the river in question was not navigable but could potentially have been made navigable

  3. Teamsters Local v. Labor Board

    365 U.S. 667 (1961)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 24 times

    No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters

    230 F.2d 256 (1st Cir. 1956)   Cited 3 times

    No. 5037. Heard December 6, 1955. Decided February 28, 1956. Harold Kowal, Field Atty., Boston, Mass., with whom Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Samuel M. Singer and Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D.C., Attys., were on brief, for petitioner. Sidney W. Wernick, Portland, Me., with whom Berman, Berman Wernick, Portland, Me., were on brief, for respondent. Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN