DUO-BED CORP.

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Citator

Cited By

• OIL City Brass Works v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 357 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1966)
  …p. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); NLRB v. Camco, Inc., 340 F. 2d 803 (5 Cir. 1965); Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc. v. NLRB, 343 F. 2d 515 (7 Cir. 1965); Duo-Bed Corp. v. NLRB, 337 F. 2d 850 [*470] (10 Cir. 1964), cert. den. 380 U.S. 912, 85 S.Ct. 897, 13 L.Ed.2d 798; Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. NLRB, 329 F. 2d 417 (5 Cir. 1964); see also, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. NLRB, 354 F. 2d 707 (5 Cir. 1965) at 709; NLRB v. Mira-Pak, Inc., 354 F. 2d 525 (5 Cir. 1965) at 527. The…
• Rice v. United States, 356 F.2d 709 (8th Cir. 1966)
  …having ever been submitted, and accordingly, this court held there was no proceeding pending before the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time of the charged offense. United States v. Batten, 226 F.Supp. 492 (D.D.C.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 912, 85 S.Ct. 898, 13 L.Ed.2d 799 (1965), is perhaps the closest of kin from a factual standpoint to the case at bar. There, the defendant was charged under § 1505 with interference with a witness before a Securities and Exchange Commission investigativ…
• United States v. Browning, Inc., 572 F.2d 720 (10th Cir. 1978)
  …this machinery would have made the proceeding more like a “proceeding” simply by virtue of the issuing of a subpoena formally or the giving notice of a preliminary investigation. United States v. Batten, 226 F.Supp. 492 (D.D.C.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 912, 85 S.Ct. 898, 13 L.Ed.2d 799 (1965), involved an S.E.C. investigation which was determined to have been a “proceeding.” However, the S.E.C. has more of a tribunal character than do many other administrative agencies. One more comment: Carzoli and…