green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
31.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · 2 courts ·
…the overall authority of the board to hear a case under the nlra
at p. 360
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Atlantic City Electric Co v. NLRB
petitioner's failure to raise the argument, and certainly its failure to file a petition for reconsideration, deprives this court of jurisdiction to address this question under section 10(e) of the nlra.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Labor Relations Board v. FedEx Freight, Inc.
(2×)
“The Supreme Court has construed this rule strictly,” NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 359 (3d Cir. 1996), and we have likewise “shown unusual unanimity in labor cases in strictly adhering to the requirement,” NLRB v. Wolff & Munier, Inc., 747 F.2d 156, 166 (3d Cir. 1984) (Sloviter, J., dissenting). “[T]o effectively preserve an issue, the respondent’s exception must apprise the Board of the issue that the responding party intends to press on review sufficiently enough that the Board may consider the exception on the merits.” Cast North America (Trucking) Ltd. v. NLRB, 207 F.3d 994, 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
1621 Route 22 West Operating Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
“While the Board’s statutory jurisdiction may be raised at any time, the facts upon which the Board determines it has jurisdiction may be challenged only upon timely exception.” 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting NLRB v. Peyton Fritton Stores, Inc., 336 F.2d 769, 770 (10th Cir. 1964)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.R. Horton, Incorporated v. NLRB
But as the RELCO court observed, the court in New Vista was partly constrained by prior Third Circuit precedent that “the overall authority of the Board to hear [a] case under the NLRA is a jurisdictional question that may be raised at any time.” New Vista, 719 F.3d at 210 (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Case: 12-60031 Document: 00512460621 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/04/2013 No. 12-60031 jurisdiction before considering merits of a lawsuit).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.R. Horton, Incorporated v. NLRB
But as the RELCO court observed, the court in New Vista was partly constrained by prior Third Circuit precedent that “the overall authority of the Board to hear [a] case under the NLRA is a jurisdictional question that may be raised at any time.” New Vista, 719 F.3d at 210 (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Case: 12-60031 Document: 00512460621 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/04/2013 No. 12-60031 jurisdiction before considering merits of a lawsuit).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
But as the RELCO court observed, the court in New Vista was partly constrained by prior Third Circuit precedent that “the overall authority of the Board to hear [a] case under the NLRA is a jurisdictional question that may be raised at any time.” New Vista, 719 F.3d at 210 (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Case: 12-60031 Document: 00512458150 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/03/2013 No. 12-60031 jurisdiction before considering merits of a lawsuit).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Labor Relations Board v. RELCO Locomotives, Inc.
(2×)
NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Labor Relations Board v. New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation
(2×)
This Court has previously explained that ―the overall authority of the Board to hear [a] case under the NLRA‖ is a jurisdictional question that ―‗may be raised at any time.‘‖ NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting NLRB v. Peyton Fritton Stores, Inc., 336 F.2d 769, 770 (10th Cir. 1964)); see also Polynesian Cultural Center, Inc. v. NLRB, 582 F.2d 467, 472 (9th Cir. 1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Teamsters Local 628, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
In reviewing such an order, we review factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, and we review legal conclusions de novo. 29 U.S.C. § 160 (f); NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 357 (3d Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, United Steelworkers, Intervenor. (Per Clerk's Order Dated 6/21/01) National Labor Relations Board v. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, United Steelworkers, Intervenor. (Per Clerk's Order Dated 7/5/01)
NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 359 (3d Cir.1996) (quoting Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 666 , 102 S.Ct. 2071 , 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 359 (3d Cir.1996) (quoting Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 666 , 102 S.Ct. 2071 , 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newell v. Ruiz
We exercise plenary review NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 357 (3d Cir.1996). 3 The Affidavit declared: "In accordance with good and acceptable medical practice the findings of June 25, 1997 and the changes from the 1995 and the 1996 mammography's [sic] should have been noted in the report.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Labor Relations Board v. Somerville 1 Construction Company
Therefore, when considering challenges to subject matter jurisdiction not presented to the NLRB, *756 courts uniformly hold that while “the Board’s statutory jurisdiction may be raised at any time, the - facts upon which the Board determines it has jurisdiction may be challenged only upon timely exception.” NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir.1996); NLRB v. International Health Care, Inc., 898 F.2d 501, 506-07 (6th Cir.1990); Red Cross Drug Co. v. NLRB, 419 F.2d 1245, 1248 (7th Cir.1969); NLRB v. Ferraro’s Bakery, Inc., 353 F.2d 366, 369 (6th Cir.1965); NLRB v. Peyton Fritton Store…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
NLRB v. Somerville Construct
Therefore, when considering challenges to subject matter jurisdiction not presented to the NLRB, courts uniformly hold that while "the Board’s statutory jurisdiction may be raised at any time, the facts upon which the Board determines it has jurisdiction may be challenged only upon timely exception." NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354, 360 (3d Cir. 1996); NLRB v. International Health Care, Inc., 898 F.2d 501, 506-07 (6th Cir. 1990); The Red Cross Drug Co. v. NLRB, 419 F.2d 1245, 1248 (7th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Ferraro’s Bakery, Inc., 353 F.2d 366, 369 (6th Cir. 1965); NLRB v. Peyton Fritton Stores, …
discussed
Cited "see"
National Labor Relations Board v. Communications Workers of America
See NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354 , 356 n. 1 (3d Cir.1996) (affirming Board’s finding that union committed unfair labor practices where union failed to object to that finding on appeal) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
NLRB v. Local 13000
See NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354 , 356 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1996) (affirming Board’s finding that union committed unfair labor practices where union failed to object to that finding on appeal) (citation omitted). 4
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
NLRB v. United Scrap Metal PA LLC
See, e.g., NLRB v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354 , 356 n.1 (3d Cir. 1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Virgin Islands Bar Association
v.
Mark Healy Bonner
v.
Mark Healy Bonner
94-7387.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Dec 19, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (1)
VIRGIN ISLANDS BAR ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Mark Healy BONNER, Defendant/Appellant.
Civil No. 94-7387.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Dec. 19, 1995.
STIPULATION
NOW COME the Virgin Islands Bar Association and Mark Healy Bonner, Esq., through undersigned counsel, and stipulate to the entry of the following order in this matter:
Upon stipulation of the parties, the court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The opinions of the court below herein, including the opinion reported at 758 F.Supp. 1088 are withdrawn;
2. Any order of the Court below, to the extent it may apply to Mark H. Bonner, is withdrawn;
3. This matter, against Mark H. Bonner, is dismissed ab initio from its filing April 26, 1990.
By: /s/ Andrew C. Simpson
Andrew C. Simpson, Esq.
DATED: November 27, 1995
By: /s/ Mark Healy Bonner
Mark H. Bonner, Esq.
DATED: November 30, 1995
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
The matter is remanded to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Brotman, J. sitting by designation, so that this stipulation may be implemented.
1
SO ORDERED.