§

A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

28-CA-085434 (N.L.R.B. May. 13, 2013)
A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,298 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  2. United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

    448 U.S. 371 (1980)   Cited 313 times
    Holding that the government could not enact legislation to take back land it had expressly reserved for the Sioux Nation without committing a constitutional taking

  3. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  5. Salahuddin v. Jones

    992 F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 197 times
    Holding that pro se plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed where they relied on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

  6. In re Medomak Canning

    922 F.2d 895 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that creditors were represented by the trustee in bankruptcy, who had a fiduciary relationship to them

  7. Marlene Industries Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    712 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 36 times
    In Marlene Industries Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 712 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir. 1983), this Court stated: "[w]e are mindful of the admonishment that 'neither collateral estoppel nor res judicata is rigidly applied.

  8. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical v. N.L.R.B

    334 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Granting petition for review and vacating unfair labor practice finding because Board interpretation of "any employee who engages in a strike" under section 8(d) of Act was "in conflict with both interpretive precedent and the statute's structure" and produced "internal inconsistency" and "irrational results in practice"

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transp. Co.

    938 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that employer engaged in surface bargaining despite the fact employer had attended six bargaining sessions with union, commented on proposals, offered counterproposals, and maintained bargaining stance that had at least some merit, because vice president of employer expressly stated that employer would not sign contract with union, openly threatened to shut down terminal in order to defeat union, and implied that employer would force strike situation and permanently dismiss those employees who left to join picket lines

  10. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. N.L.R.B

    318 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that demonstration of economic exigency justifies prompt implementation of a company's proposals