CAPITAL SERVICE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS DANISH MAID BAKERY, ET AL.

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Citator

Cited By

• San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1959)
  …phrased its grant of cer-tiorari to include only the limited question of the State’s jurisdiction to award damages “[i]n view of, the type of conduct found by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to have been carried out by Petitioners . . . ,” 346 U. S. 936, despite the fact that petitioners had urged upon us a question not limited to the particular conduct involved. Petition for certiorari, p. 6. Throughout,' the opinion of the Court makes it clear that the holding in favor of state jurisdiction was…
• United Constr. Workers v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 347 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1954)
  …out by Petitioners, does the National Labor [*659] Relations Board have exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter so as to preclude the State Court from hearing and determining the issues in a common-law tort action based upon this conduct?’ ” 346 U. S. 936.2 We are concerned only with the above-stated jurisdictional question. We accept the view of the National Labor Relations Board that respondent’s activities affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act.3 The “…
• Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1955)
  …bject matter was in the National Labor Relations Board (Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485), could the Federal District Court, on application of the Board, enjoin Petitioners from enforcing an injunction already obtained from the State Court?” 346 U. S. 936. Cf., e. g., Reilly Cartage Co., 110 N. L. R. B., No. 233; Oil Workers International Union, 84 N. L. R. B. 315; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 84 N. L. R. B. 360, rev'd sub nom. International Rice Milling Co. v. Labor Board, 183 F. 2d 21,…