278 F.2d 866 - Bandlow v. Rothman — 278 F.2d 866

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 1981

9 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Argued March 10, 1960.

¶2Mr. Karl M. Dollak, Bethesda, Md., for appellants.

¶3Mr. Duane B. Beeson, Atty., N. L. R. B., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for appellees.

¶4Mr. Richard J. Scupi, Atty., N. L. R. B., also entered an appearance for appellees.

¶5Before Edgerton, Bazelon and Burger, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM.

¶7Appellants asked the District Court to require the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board to issue a complaint charging unfair labor practices. They also sought to compel the Board to set aside the General Counsel’s refusal. This appeal is from an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court was clearly right. It “has no power to order the General Counsel to issue a complaint and no power to require the Board to issue an order in a matter which is not before the Board.” Hourihan v. National Labor Relations Board, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 317, 201 F.2d 187, 188, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 930, 73 S.Ct. 792, 97 L.Ed. 1359.

¶8Affirmed.