Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 27 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from National Labor Relations Board v. Savair Manufacturing Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | National Labor Relations Board v. Savair Manufacturing Co. Anchor | green | “although the benefits granted by the employer were permanent and unconditional, employees were 'not likely to miss the inference that the source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits must flow and which may dry up if it is not obliged.” | 4 |
| 2 | National Labor Relations Board v. Savair Manufacturing Co. | green | “legally bound to vote for the union and has not promised to do so in any formal sense” | 4 |
| 3 | Clearwater Transport, Incorporated, Doing Business as Hawkinson Van Lines v. National Labor Relations Board | green | “substantial and material factual issues” | 4 |
| 4 | Freund Baking Company v. National Labor Relations Board | green | “both crude and subtle forms of vote-buying” | 4 |
| 5 | National Labor Relations Board v. Americold Logistics, Inc. | green | “the nlrb must hold a hearing when the employer makes a prima facie showing of misconduct that would be sufficient to set aside the election.” | 4 |
| 6 | National Labor Relations Board, and International Union of Elevator Constructors, Afl-Cio, Intervening-Petitioner v. River City Elevator Company, Inc. | green | “sufficiently valuable and desirable in the eyes of the person to whom they are offered, to have the potential to influence that person's vote?” | 4 |
| 7 | Sears, Roebuck & Company, Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner | green | “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 8 nos. 17-2042 17-2111 conclusion.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.