Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nashua Pre-Cast Corp., 475 F.2d 765 (1st Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nashua Pre-Cast Corp., 475 F.2d 765 (1st Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Seymore v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc. (nysd, 1980-01-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seymore v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · confidence medium
Under the same rationale, a § 1981 plaintiff demanding compensatory or punitive damages may demand a jury trial, McCray, supra, unless the claims for punitive and/or compensatory damages under § 1981 are so baseless as to be treated as a sham, see Lynch v. Pan American World Airways, 475 F.2d 765, 766 (5th Cir. 1973) (denying plaintiff’s request for jury trial where basic claim under § 1981 for reinstatement and back pay and allegations for compensatory and punitive damages “unsupported”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
NASHUA PRE-CAST CORPORATION, Respondent
72-1339.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Mar 16, 1973.
475 F.2d 765
Edward N. Bomsey, Attorney, Washington, D. C., with whom Peter G. Nash, General Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate General Counsel, Marcel MalletPrevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Leonard M. Wagman, Attorney, Los Angeles, Cal., were on brief, for petitioner., Julius Kirie, Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Coffin, Aldrich, McEntee.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The basic question presented on this petition for enforcement is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings. Without in any way departing from our rule that the burden of producing evidence, as distinguished from speculation, is on the Board, e. g., NLRB v. Millard Metal Service Center, Inc., 1 Cir., 1973, 472 F.2d 647; Cross Baking Co. v. NLRB, 1 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 1346, respondent’s criticism of the Board’s decision, 198 N.L.R.B. No. 30 (1972), cannot be viewed as of that nature. Respondent’s over-extensive briefing recites evidence which might have warranted a different result, but it does not require us to reject the evidence on which the Board relied, or the inferences it reasonably drew therefrom.

The order will be enforced.