green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Otter Tail Power Company v. Federal Power Commission, and Village of Elbow Lake, Minnesota
See, Rural Electrification Administration v. Northern States Power Co., 8 Cir., 1967, 373 F.2d 686 , cert. denied sub. nom., Northern States Power Co. v. Rural Electrification Administration, 1967, 387 U.S. 945 , 87 S.Ct. 2079 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 . 2 . § 202 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “(b) Whenever the Commission, upon application of * * * any person engaged in the transmission or sale of electric energy, and after notice * * * and after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or appropriate in the public interest it may by order direct a public utility * * * to establ…
cited
Cited "see"
Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc. v. The United States. American President Lines, Ltd. v. The United States. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. v. The United States. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. The United States
See Rural Electrification Administration v. Northern States Power Co., 373 F.2d 686 (C.A.8), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 945 , 87 S.Ct. 2079 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967); Rural Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Molon Motor And Coil Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
See Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 522 , 96 S.Ct. 1029, 1037 , 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976); NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112 , 76 S.Ct. 679, 684 , 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956). 6 Drawing that line requires courts to balance "whether the means utilized by the employee in protesting, when balanced against the employer's property rights, are entitled to the protection of the Act." Peck, Inc., 226 N.L.R.B. 1174 , 1175 (1976) (Member Pennello, concurring); compare Golay & Co. v. NLRB, 371 F.2d 259 , 262 (7th Cir.1966) (work stoppage protected because employer refused to discuss the matter and hast…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Molon Motor & Coil Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
Drawing that line requires courts to balance “whether the means utilized by the employee in protesting, when balanced against the employer’s property rights, are entitled to the protection of the Act.” Peck, Inc., 226 N.L.R.B. 1174 , 1175 (1976) (Member Pennello, concurring); compare Golay & Co. v. NLRB, 371 F.2d 259 , 262 (7th Cir.1966) (work stoppage protected because employer refused to discuss the matter and hastily discharged the workers without any warning to leave the property), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 944 , 87 S.Ct. 2079 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967); Roseville Dodge, Inc. v. NLRB, 882…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Local 2855, Afge Afl-Cio) v. United States
See also Rural Electrification Administration v. Northern States Power Co., 373 F.2d 686, 700 (8 Cir.), Cert. denied, 387 U.S. 945 , 87 S.Ct. 2079 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967) (citations omitted): The studied expertise of the Administrator, the Comptroller General and Congress as to the comparative cost studies, efficiency, flexibility and overall utility should remain in their capable hands and not the courts.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Local 2855, AFGE (AFL-CIO) v. United States
See also Rural Electrification Administration v. Northern States Power Co., 373 F.2d 686, 700 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 945 , 87 S.Ct. 2079 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967) (citations omitted): The studied expertise of the Administrator, the Comptroller General and Congress as to the comparative cost studies, efficiency, flexibility and overall utility should remain in their capable hands and not the courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Golay & Co., Inc.
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 1370.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 5, 1967.
William E. Roberts for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordmatn, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent National Labor Relations Board.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.