29 U.S.C. § 165
Conflict of laws
Wherever the application of the provisions of section 272 of chapter 10 of the Act entitled “An Act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States”, approved
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1936–2006 · leading case: In the Matter of Shippers Interstate Serv., Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 618 F.2d 9 (7th Cir. 1980).
In the Matter of Shippers Interstate Serv., Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 618 F.2d 9 (7th Cir. 1980). “29 U.S.C. § 165 . As the district court correctly noted, the fact that Congress did not provide in like manner for the National Labor Relations Act to take precedence over Chapter XI proceedings distinguishes cases which hold that the Labor Board matters are not stayed by…”
James W. Yarbro & Mary E. Yarbro v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 737 F.2d 479 (5th Cir. 1984). “" 29 U.S.C. §§ 165 (a), (f), 1211, 1212. 8 Standard Federal Tax Reporter f 4717 (CCH 1984).”
Bradley Lumber Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 84 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1936). “Therefore a demonstration that in some of its provisions the act goes farther than Congress constitutionally can, will not destroy it. We must treat the act as having a field for constitutional application, and the Board as a body having a constitutional function.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. MacKay Radio & Tel. Co., 87 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1937). “This much is certainly within the power of Congress, and therefore justifies and requires the court to consider the case (see section 15 [ 29 U.S.C.A. § 165 ] and above discussion thereof), and, if need be, deny the application upon constitutional grounds (see section 15 of the…”
In Re Klaber Bros., Inc., 173 F. Supp. 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1959). “The Union contends: (1) That the National Labor Relations Board has preemptive jurisdiction by reason of Section 15 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 165 , which reads as follows: “§ 165.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., 85 F.2d 990 (4th Cir. 1936). “The respondent also attacks the act on the ground that, as construed by the Board, it applies not only to interstate commerce, but also to the local industry of manufacture and production, and that therefore the whole act falls, notwithstanding the express declaration of section…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New England Transp. Co., 14 F. Supp. 497 (D. Conn. 1936). “A. § 161 (1, 2), in so far as they are adapted to aid the operative provisions above quoted, are likewise valid and constitutional.”
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455 v. Kevin Steel Prods., Inc., 519 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1975). “For another example of specific congressional action making Labor Act policies control, see § 15 of that Act, 29 U.S.C. § 165 , overriding § 272 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.”
Intl Union v. Cummins Engine Co (6th Cir. 2006). “151, 169 (1983) (applying the six-month statute of limitations from the NLRA to claims made against employers or unions pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 165 ). As applied to this case, the period begins to run “when the employer takes an No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.