Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co.

7 Cited authorities

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 505 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Interstate Circuit v. U.S.
306 U.S. 208 (1939) Cited 512 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"
May Stores Co. v. Labor Board
326 U.S. 376 (1945) Cited 257 times
Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 7 (1940) Cited 231 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.
Matter of Kaplan v. Rainisch Bros., Inc.
160 Misc. 685 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1936)
June 5, 1936. Charles Diringer, for the motion. Harry Lefkowitz, opposed. KADIEN, J. This is an application made on behalf of a mortgagee pursuant to section 1077-c of the Civil Practice Act to compel the owner of the equity to pay to the petitioner the surplus produced by the mortgaged premises. It appears that the property consists of a gasoline service station owned and operated by the owner of the fee. This court referred the matter to an official referee to take proof and report as to the reasonable

Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co.

7 Cited authorities

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board

In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

Matter of Kaplan v. Rainisch Bros., Inc.