Mar Salle Convalescent Home

19 Cited authorities

Morgan v. United States
304 U.S. 1 (1938) Cited 634 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary"
Morgan v. United States
298 U.S. 468 (1936) Cited 542 times
Holding that the Constitution only requires that the officer making the decision must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies the decision
Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board
313 U.S. 146 (1941) Cited 294 times
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bata Shoe Co.
377 F.2d 821 (4th Cir. 1967) Cited 65 times
In NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., 377 F.2d 821 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 238, 19 L.Ed.2d 265 (1967), upon which Randall relies, the employer presented specific evidence of more severe procedural irregularities that demonstrably affected the election results.
N.L.R.B. v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc.
297 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1961) Cited 50 times
In NLRB v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc., (5 Cir. 1961) 297 F.2d 74, 76, the necessity for granting a hearing on objections to an election was under consideration.
Lucas v. United States
355 F.2d 245 (10th Cir. 1966) Cited 28 times
No. 8367. January 24, 1966. James F. Fellingham, Oklahoma City, Okla., for appellant. Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee. Before PICKETT, LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges. HILL, Circuit Judge. The appellant, Ernest Clifford Lucas, and his codefendant, Shirley Ann Haygood, who has not appealed, were convicted by a jury on all three counts of an information charging them with committing the offenses of the unlawful sale and transfer of heroin
Follett Corporation v. N.L.R.B
397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968) Cited 20 times
No. 16221. June 10, 1968. Robert C. Claus, James S. Petrie, John P. Jacoby, Chicago, Ill., Vedder, Price, Kaufman Kammholz, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioners. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George B. Driesen, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Fred R. Kimmel, Atty., N.L.R.B., for respondent. Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, and SWYGERT and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges. SWYGERT, Circuit Judge. Follett Corporation
N.L.R.B. v. Burnett Construction Company
350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965) Cited 15 times
No. 8039. August 6, 1965. Melvin H. Reifin, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Warren M. Davidson, Atty., N.L.R.B., with him on the brief), for petitioner. Harold B. Wagner, Denver, Colo., for respondent. Before PHILLIPS, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges. PICKETT, Circuit Judge. This proceeding is here on the Board's petition for enforcement of its order directing respondent to cease and desist
N.L.R.B. v. Lord Baltimore Press, Inc.
300 F.2d 671 (4th Cir. 1962) Cited 18 times
No. 8416. Argued January 5, 1962. Decided March 19, 1962. Glen M. Bendixsen, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for petitioner. Earle K. Shawe, Baltimore, Md. (Sidney J. Barban, William J. Rosenthal, and Larry M. Wolf, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOPER, BRYAN and BELL
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sidran
181 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1950) Cited 30 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Sidran, 181 F.2d 671 (C.A. 5), cited by respondent, the Court could only have held that the Board erred in denying a hearing if "substantial and material factual issues" were raised.
Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,408 times 559 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party
Section 554 - Adjudications
5 U.S.C. § 554 Cited 1,043 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."
Section 557 - Initial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency; submissions by parties; contents of decisions; record
5 U.S.C. § 557 Cited 747 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that in an administrative appeal, the agency "has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule"

Mar Salle Convalescent Home

19 Cited authorities

Holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary"

Holding that the Constitution only requires that the officer making the decision must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies the decision

In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

In NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., 377 F.2d 821 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 238, 19 L.Ed.2d 265 (1967), upon which Randall relies, the employer presented specific evidence of more severe procedural irregularities that demonstrably affected the election results.

In NLRB v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc., (5 Cir. 1961) 297 F.2d 74, 76, the necessity for granting a hearing on objections to an election was under consideration.

In N.L.R.B. v. Sidran, 181 F.2d 671 (C.A. 5), cited by respondent, the Court could only have held that the Board erred in denying a hearing if "substantial and material factual issues" were raised.

Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."

Providing that in an administrative appeal, the agency "has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule"