WHAYNE

v.

M. V. SHUTTLER, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• Power Sys., Inc. v. Stallings & McCORVEY, Inc., 454 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
  …ecided the case on the merits. Additionally, although United States District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction of actions on bonds under the Miller Act, see United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hendry Corp., 391 F. 2d 13 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 393 U.S. 978, 89 S.Ct. 446, 21 L.Ed.2d 439 (1968), the Miller Act does not preclude a common law action in state court against the principals. However, under the Miller Act, the surety cannot be named as a party in a state action, is not permitted to intervene i…
• Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 499 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1991)
  …Ice Cream Corp. v. NLRB, 705 F. 2d 570, 574 (CA1 1983); Local 627, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers v. NLRB, 194 U. S. App. D. C. 37, 41, 595 F. 2d 844, 848 (1979); NLRB v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 391 F. 2d 119, 123 (CA3), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 978 (1968). Thus, one union might seek to represent all of the employees in a particular plant, those in a particular craft, or perhaps just a portion thereof. Given the obvious potential for disagreement concerning the appropriateness of the unit sele…
• Pac. Sw. Airlines v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 587 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1978)
  …Fisher Controls Co., 192 N.L.R.B. 514 (1971). Such conclusory judgments hamper our review of Board policy when the underlying reasons are not readily apparent. See NLRB v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 391 F. 2d 119 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 978, 89 S.Ct. 445, 21 L.Ed.2d 439 (1968). Often, where the Board fails to provide a rationale for its adoption of a rule, or for its decision in a case, the proper course for a reviewing court is to order a remand for explication by the Board of its re…