green
Positive treatment
21.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Dba Koin-Tv v. National Labor Relations Board
“The law is well settled that the Board is entitled to summary enforcement of the portions of its order that [the petitioner(s)] did not challenge.” NLRB v. Remington Lodging & Hosp., LLC, 708 F. App’x 425, 425 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing, as an example, Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BE&K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
See, e. g., Petrochem, Insulation, Inc. v. NLRB, 240 F. 3d 26, 32 (CADC), cert. denied, 534 U. S. 992 (2001); Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F. 3d 1085, 1088 (CA9 1995); NLRB v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 520, AFL-CIO, 15 F. 3d 677, 679 (CA7 1994); Braun Elec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Be&k Construction Company, Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/coss-Petitioner, Steamfitters Local 342, Intervenors
As determined by the Ninth Circuit in Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 1995), the simple request for such punitive damages is another factor to be considered in evaluating an employer's motive in prosecuting its lawsuit. 50 Finally, an additional inference of retaliatory motive may be made from the fact that BE&K sought recompense from two union organizations for a previous lawsuit filed by other union officials, even though the two union locals admittedly were not parties to the precedent legal action (the Piledrivers suit).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BE&K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
As determined by the Ninth Circuit in Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.1995), the simple request for such punitive damages is another factor to be considered in evaluating an employer’s motive in prosecuting its lawsuit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petrochem Insulation, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Cf. Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.1995) (finding the fact that an employer sought punitive damages in its suit against a union to be evidence that the suit was retaliatory); Kline v. Coldwell Banker & Co., 508 F.2d 226, 235 (9th Cir.1974) (characterizing antitrust treble damages as punitive).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Geske & Sons, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See NLRB v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 520, 15 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.1994) (Bill Johnson’s analysis applied to suit by union against union member); Diamond Walnut Growers, 53 F.3d at 1087-90 (Bill Johnson’s analysis applied to suit by employer against union); Gibson Greetings, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 385 , 394 (D.C.Cir.1995) (same in dicta); Hoeber v. Local 30, United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, 939 F.2d 118 , 126 (3d Cir.1991) (Bill Johnson’s analysis applied to suit by union against employer).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clark v. Esser
Bill Johnson’s, 461 U.S. at 747 , 103 S.Ct. at 2172 (emphasis added); see also Johnson & Hardin Co. v. NLRB, 49 F.3d 237 , 242-243 (6th Cir.1995); Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although ... the mere lack of a *1085 lawsuit’s success does not by itself establish retaliation, it may be taken into account along with other factors in determining retaliatory motive.”); NLRB v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 520, 15 F.3d 677, 679 (7th Cir.1994) (“[I]f a union’s lawsuit has been finally adjudicated and the union has not prevail…
cited
Cited "see"
Unite Here! Local 878, Afl-Cio v. NLRB
See Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995). 1.
cited
Cited "see"
United Nurses Associations of California v. National Labor Relations Board
See Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995); NLRB v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 709 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1983).
cited
Cited "see"
White v. Lee
See Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited "see"
White v. Lee
See Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Gumport v. AT & T Technologies, Inc. (In re Transcon Lines)
See Diamond Walnut Growers v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,018, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5003, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8071 in Re Transcon Lines, Debtor. Leonard L. Gumport v. At & T Technologies, Inc., Leonard L. Gumport v. Acf Industries, Inc., Leonard L. Gumport v. A.O. Smith Corp., Leonard L. Gumport v. American Standard, Inc., Surface Transportation Board, 1 Defendant-Intervenor/appellee. Leonard L. Gumport v. International Business MacHines Corporation, Leonard L. Gumport, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Eastman Kodak Co., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
See Diamond Walnut Growers v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See Schep v. Resolution Trust Corp., 53 F.3d 1085, 1085 (9th Cir.1995); Massachusetts v. FDIC, 47 F.3d 456, 458 (1st Cir.1995) (“Massachusetts ”); Callejo v. Resolution Trust Corp., 17 F.3d 1497, 1500 (D.C.Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
NLRB v. Remington Ldg. & Hosp.
See, e.g., Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995). *** The Honorable Leslie E.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC
See, e.g., Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert C. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.1995) (finding employer's defamation lawsuit against union violated NLRA); GHR Energy Corp., 294 N.L.R.B. 1011 , 1014 (1989) (analyzing whether employer's threat to sue employee for defamation violated NLRA), aff'd, 924 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1991). 62 Hawaiian does not argue that Nobles would be justified in threatening to sue Konop for defamation.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
See, e.g., Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.1995) (finding employer’s defamation lawsuit against union violated NLRA); GHR Energy Corp., 294 N.L.R.B. 1011 , 1014 (1989), enforced, 924 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1991) (analyzing whether employer’s threat to sue employee for defamation violated NLRA).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nadja Sahliger Schep
v.
Resolution Trust Corporation
v.
Resolution Trust Corporation
93-70905.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 17, 1995.
Published
Nadja Sahliger SCHEP, Petitioner,
v.
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, Respondent.
No. 93-70905.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 4, 1995.
Decided May 17, 1995.
Thomas A. McWatters III, James M. Harris, Sidley & Austin, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioner.
Roy A. Jeys, Wilson & Becks and Constance G. Brigham, Los Angeles, CA, and Mitchell E. Plave, Washington, DC, for respondent.
[*~1085]1
On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Resolution Trust Corporation.
2
Before BEEZER and TROTT, Circuit Judges and SHUBB[*], District Judge.
ORDER
[*~1089]3
We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this petition for the reasons set forth in Massachusetts v. FDIC, 47 F.3d 456 (1st Cir.1995). The petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1631.
*
The Honorable William B. Shubb, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation