green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
12.2 score
“judicial intervention before the merits have been finally determined frequently imposes a burden on defendant that ultimately turns out to be unjustified”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Darnell GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John C. LAWN, D.E.A. Administrator, Defendant-Appellee
But see EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir.1981) (holding that the EEOC does have a burden to show irreparable harm and disagreeing with Pacific Press).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pacific Southwest Airlines
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
judicial intervention before the merits have been finally determined frequently imposes a burden on defendant that ultimately turns out to be unjustified
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Astra U.S.A., Inc.
(3×)
Although the issue is not free of doubt, see EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 , 1043 (6th Cir.1981), this Court concludes, for three reasons, that the traditional four-part test should control: 1.The fact that § 706(f)(2) requires the EEOC to seek preliminary relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 and does not include language limiting the Court’s discretion to deny the requested relief “indicates that [Congress] intended the courts to exercise their traditional discretion in ruling on these actions.” Anchor Hocking, 666 F.2d at 1043. 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles E. Wagner v. Reese H. Taylor, Jr., Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir.1981), the Sixth Circuit concluded that EEOC could establish the irreparable injury essential to a grant of an interim injunction by showing that “its ability to prosecute the pending charge ha[d] been impeded by the alleged retaliation through the ‘chilling’ effect on other employees’ willingness to cooperate in the investigation." Id. at 1043.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chateau Normandy, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
News 2137, 2179, 2182. 666 F.2d at 1041-42.
cited
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BNSF Railway Company
See Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d at 1043.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bravata
(2×)
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 , 1041 n. 4 (6th Cir.1981) (holding that § 706(f)(2) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not create its own standard for granting of preliminary injunctions, and noting that “[t]he language of 706(f)(2) is in contrast with a number of other federal statutes authorizing government agencies to seek injunctive relief, which do appear to limit the district court’s discretion as to whether the injunction should issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Astra USA, Inc.
(2×)
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 , 1040-41 (6th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
EEOC v. ASTRA U.S.A., Inc.
(2×)
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking ___ ____ ______________ Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 , 1040-41 (6th Cir. 1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
EEOC v. ASTRA U.S.A., Inc.
(2×)
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 , 1040-41 (6th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
53 Fair empl.prac.cas. 613, 54 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,064 Black Fire Fighters Association of Dallas v. City of Dallas, Texas, and Dallas Fire Fighters Association, Intervening Black Fire Fighters Association of Dallas v. City of Dallas, Texas
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir.1981); Holt v. Continental Group, Inc., 708 F.2d 87 (2d Cir.1983); Moteles v. Univ. of Pennsylvania, 730 F.2d 913 (3d Cir.1984); EEOC v. Pacific Press Publishing Ass'n., 535 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir.1976). 18 I would further have adhered to the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs have not at this juncture carried their burden of showing irreparable harm. 1 The Dallas Fire Fighters Association, representing most of the city's firemen, was allowed to intervene on the side of the City.
discussed
Cited "see"
Black Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Dallas
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir.1981); Holt v. Continental Group, Inc., 708 F.2d 87 (2d Cir.1983); Moteles v. Univ. of Pennsylvania, 730 F.2d 913 (3d Cir.1984); EEOC v. Pacific Press Publishing Ass’n., 535 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir.1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United States Steel Corp.
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 , 1043 (6th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lacy v. Dayton Board of Education
(2×)
See, EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 , 1041-1043 (6th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chrysler Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See EEOC v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 666 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir. 1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MAREMONT CORPORATION, WORLD PARTS DIVISION, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
80-1659.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Dec 15, 1981.
Edward R. Young and George W. Love-land, II, Young & Perl, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner., Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Robert Wesley Smith, College Park, Md., John Coyle, for respondent.
Weick, Keith, Allen.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition to review and the cross-petition of the Board for enforcement of its order which was submitted to the court on the record, briefs and oral arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that the order of the Board setting aside the election is not supported by sufficient evidence and is clearly erroneous. It is therefore ordered that said order of the Board be set aside and held for naught and that said election conducted be held to be valid.