§

Goya Foods Inc d/b/a Goya Foods

358 N.L.R.B. 345 (N.L.R.B. 2012)
Goya Foods Inc d/b/a Goya Foods

14 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Martino

    648 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 202 times
    Holding that participant in scheme to defraud "can disclaim responsibility for acts of his coschemers only if he undertakes some affirmative act of withdrawal"

  2. American Flint Glass Workers v. Beaumont Glass

    62 F.3d 574 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 111 times
    Finding that the settlement agreement concerning the terms of a pension plan was an agreement between an employer and a union, and thus a labor agreement

  3. U.S. v. Devin

    918 F.2d 280 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 117 times
    Holding the “disjunctive terminology [of Rule 404(b) ] shows unmistakably that [it] reaches conduct which is neither criminal nor unlawful so long as the conduct is probative of, and revelatory as to, a permitted purpose”

  4. United States v. Hyson

    721 F.2d 856 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 57 times
    Ruling that associating with three conspirators and being aware of the presence of drugs in their apartment is insufficient to establish a willingness to participate in and advance the purpose of the conspiracy

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Goya Foods

    525 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 13 times
    Approving a decertification bar lasting up to one year

  6. Henderson v. United States

    218 F.2d 14 (6th Cir. 1955)   Cited 102 times
    Permitting a witness to testify who had been receiving shock treatments in a sanitarium

  7. United States v. Lightly

    677 F.2d 1027 (4th Cir. 1982)   Cited 27 times

    No. 80-5144. Argued March 5, 1982. Decided May 6, 1982. Daniel J. Hurson, Kennewick, W. Va., for appellant. William G. Otis, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va. (Karen P. Tandy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and ERVIN, Circuit Judge. ERVIN, Circuit Judge: On December 19, 1979, Terrance McKinley, an inmate at Lorton Reformatory in northern Virginia, sustained

  8. Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    No. 02-1167/1310. Argued: October 21, 2003. Decided and Filed: January 7, 2004. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. No. 8-CA-31292. Maurice G. Jenkins (argued and briefed), Paul R. Bernard (abriefed), Jennifer K. Nowaczok (briefed), Dickinson, Wright, PLLC, Detroit, MI, for Petitioner. David Seid (argued and briefed), National Labor Relations Board, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Aileen A. Armstrong (briefed)

  9. Drukker Communications, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    700 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that "more generalized `fishing expeditions' for helpful evidence . . . have uniformly been rejected"

  10. Stephens Produce Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    515 F.2d 1373 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that the need for the requested material did not warrant the production of the information under the discovery rules, nor did it overcome the limited investigatory privilege

  11. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,616 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

  12. Rule 601 - Competency to Testify in General

    Fed. R. Evid. 601   Cited 621 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that whether a person was allegedly intoxicated is an issue of credibility to be determined by the jury

  13. Rule 603 - Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully

    Fed. R. Evid. 603   Cited 159 times
    Setting out the oath requirement

  14. Section 102.118 - Present and former Board employees prohibited from producing documents and testifying; production of witnesses' statements after direct testimony

    29 C.F.R. § 102.118   Cited 57 times

    (a)Prohibition on producing files and documents. Except as provided in § 102.117 respecting requests cognizable under the Freedom of Information Act, no present or former employee or specially designated agent of the Agency will produce or present any files, documents, reports, memoranda, or records of the Board or of the General Counsel, whether in response to a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise, without the written consent of the Board or the Chairman of the Board if the document is in Washington