ALLEY

v.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (85 total)

• Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 437 U.S. 556 (U.S. 1978)
  …terial in the newsletter here met this test. Id., at 204-205.9 Because of apparent differences among the Courts of Appeals as to the scope of rights protected by the “mutual aid or protection” clause of § 7, see n. 17, infra, we granted certiorari. 434 U. S. 1045 (1978). We affirm. [*563] II Two distinct questions are presented. The first is whether, apart from the location of the activity, distribution of the newsletter is the kind of concerted activity that is protected from employer interference by §§ 7…
• Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978)
  …t upheld the Minnesota Pension Act against a federal institutional challenge based on the Contract Clause, as well as other constitutional provisions. We have noted probable jurisdiction in that case sub nom. Allied Structured Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 434 U. S. 1045, but have not yet heard oral argument.…
• In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. (D.C. MDL No. 189). Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983)
  …234, 1240 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 636 F. 2d 1211 (3d Cir.1980). Moreover, coconspirator statements admissible on conspiracy counts may be considered on substantive counts as well. United States v. Cahalane, 560 F. 2d 601, 605 n. 4 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1045, 98 S.Ct. 890, 54 L.Ed.2d 796 (1977). See also, United States v. Mendoza, 473 F. 2d 692, 695 (5th Cir.1972) (coconspirator exception applicable to criminal prosecutions and not limited to prosecutions for conspiracy); United States v. Accardi, 342…