green
Positive treatment
9.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1959 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1959
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California Cartage Company v. National Labor Relations Board, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Pacific Maritime Association, Western Conference of Teamsters and Local Union 692, Intervenors. Pacific Maritime Association v. National Labor Relations Board, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Intervenors. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 10 v. National Labor Relations Board, Western Conference of Teamsters and Local Union 692, Intervenors
See, e.g., Production Workers, Local 707 v. NLRB, 793 F.2d 323 , 333 (D.C.Cir.1986); Carpet, Linoleum, Local 419 v. NLRB, 429 F.2d 747 , 752 (D.C.Cir.1970); Local No. 24, IBT v. NLRB, 266 F.2d 675, 680 (D.C.Cir.1959).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California Cartage Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
See, e.g., Production Workers, Local 707 v. NLRB, 793 F.2d 323 , 333 (D.C.Cir.1986); Carpet, Linoleum, Local 419 v. NLRB, 429 F.2d 747 , 752 (D.C.Cir.1970); Local No. 24, IBT v. NLRB, 266 F.2d 675, 680 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 v. National Labor Relations Board
Workers v. NLRB, supra note 25, 187 U.S.App.D.C. at 233 , 571 F.2d at 667 29 See Local 24, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 271, 276 , 266 F.2d 675, 680 (1959) (Board erred in failing to consider all material facts) 30 See NLRB v. Steel Fabricators Local 810, supra note 17 , 460 F.2d at 5 -6 31 National Labor Relations Act, § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 158 (b)(4)(ii) (B) (1976), providing in pertinent part: It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents (4) . . . (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an indus…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile & Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. National Labor Relations Board
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
B., supra, 105 U.S.App.D.C. at 276, 266 F.2d at 680; Building Service Employees International Union, Local 32-J v. N. L.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile And Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No. 419, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
B., supra, 105 U.S.App.D.C. at 276, 266 F.2d at 680; Building Service Employees International Union, Local 32-J v. N. L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Labor Relations Board v. Local 810
B., 266 F.2d 675, 680 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Labor Relations Board v. Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys & Hardware Fabricators & Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
B., 266 F.2d 675, 680 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile & Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. National Labor Relations Board
But this court has recognized, in Local No. 24, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. NLRB, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 271, 276 , 266 F.2d 675, 680 (1959), that “the answer must be derived by applying the intent of the statute to the facts in the case.” 7 The consideration we give to the ally doctrine accordingly is to aid our understanding of what the statute is intended to prohibit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile And Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No. 419, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board
But this court has recognized, in Local No. 24, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. NLRB, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 271, 276 , 266 F.2d 675, 680 (1959), that "the answer must be derived by applying the intent of the statute to the facts in the case." 7 The consideration we give to the ally doctrine accordingly is to aid our understanding of what the statute is intended to prohibit. 11 Section 8(b)(4)(B) makes no reference to a "neutral employer." The term derives from the remarks of Senator Taft, sponsor of the provision, describing its purpose: 12 This provision…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Building Service Employees International Union Local 32-J, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board
Bro. of Teamsters, etc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 105 U.S. App.D.C. 271, 276, 266 F.2d 675, 680 (1959), where we dealt specifically with § 8(b) (4) (B), we said: “Of course, in an area so wide as is the field of labor relations, there are many situations in which the answer to a dispute under [8(b) (4) (B) ] is easily derived by the application of such legalistic formulae as ‘independent contractors’, ‘co-employers’, or ‘allies’.
discussed
Cited "see"
Retail Store Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
See Local 24, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 271, 276 , 266 F.2d 675, 680 (1959) (Board erred in failing to consider all material facts). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McLeod v. Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys & Hardware Fabricators & Warehousemen
(2×)
Compare Local 24, International Board of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 271 , 266 F.2d 675 (picketing allowed against secondary employer which controlled primary employees). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SCOTTISH RITE SUPREME COUNCIL, a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Robert JACOBS, Appellee
v.
Robert JACOBS, Appellee
14532.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 9, 1959.
Mr. Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Nicholas J. Chase, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. A. Kenneth Pye and Philip A. Ryan, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Edwin J. Bradley, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Prettyman, Miller, Bazelon.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
Appellee Jacobs, a fireman, brought a civil action in the District Court on account of injuries received by him while fighting a fire at the premises of the appellant. The condition which gave rise to the injuries was not caused by or connected with the fire itself. It was alleged that the appellant owner had with knowledge left a dangerous concealed condition on the premises. It was alleged that Jacobs fell into an uncovered shaft without negligence on his part. We find no error.
Affirmed.