AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA (IND.) ET AL.

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• Warriner v. Fernandez, 310 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
  …ted States District Court on February 28, 1961. An appeal was taken to the United States Court of Appeals and the Order of dismissal was affirmed and is reported in [5 Cir.] 307 F. 2d 933. Certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 372 U.S. 943 [83 S.Ct. 937, 9 L.Ed.2d 969]. . . . Frances O. Warriner vs. Harry Fink, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 63-611. This action was dismissed by the United States District Court in March 1964. . Marilyn Fer…
• Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981)
  …l group test” adopted by the court below, Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 210 F. Supp. 483, 485 (ED Pa.), petition for mandamus and prohibition denied sub nom. General Electric Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 312 F. 2d 742 (CA3 1962), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 943 (1963), reflected a similar conceptual approach: “Keeping in mind that the question is, Is it the corporation which is seeking the lawyer’s advice when the asserted privileged communication is made?, the most satisfactory solution, I think, is that…
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Enter. Ass'n OF Steam, 429 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1977)
  …at 615 n. 2. The Board found that this sentence violated § 8 (e). This finding, consistent with prevailing law, was not challenged by the union. See, e. g., NLRB v. Amalgamated Lithographers of America, 309 F. 2d 31, 35-36 (CA9 1962), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 943 (1963); Employing Lithographers of Greater Miami v. NLRB, 301 F. 2d 20, 29-30 (CA5 1962). The validity of the will-not-handle provision in this case was not challenged by the charging party, and the Board referred to it as a valid provision.' Becau…