370 U.S. 626 (1962) Cited 25,538 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
Holding that marijuana is a "resource" and that the defendant "obtained" constructive possession of a "substantial" amount of this resource when he arranged for the transportation of 4,800 pounds of marijuana from South Carolina to New York City
Holding that courts must not "substitute [their] judgment for those of the Board with respect to the issues that Congress intended the Board should resolve"
Holding that even where interpretive route is not spelled out or there is an "error in interpretation," the award stands as long as there is a "possible interpretive route to the award"
Holding that "Rule 408 does not exclude evidence of alleged threats to retaliate for protected activity when the statements occurred during negotiations focused on the protected activity and the evidence serves to prove liability either for making, or later acting upon, the threats" because the evidence was not introduced in order to prove the validity of the grievance which served as the subject of the negotiations
Concluding employer entitled to judgment as matter of law where employee offered no evidence of number and types of positions available in local job market that did not require heavy or medium lifting