80 F. Supp. 402 - White v. Douds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Local 1250 has failed to comply with Section 9(f) of the Act.” The association and the Company by stipulation pursuant to Section 9(c) (4) of the Act agreed to a consent election to be held on July 29, 1948; on July 27, 1948 the attorney for plaintiff Belle White asked the Board that she be granted permission to “intervene”; a hearing was held by the board on that date, the attorney for plaintiff Belle White attended and presented some cards signed by employees authorizing her to represent them and entered objection to the holding of the election. The election was postponed, later reset for August 2nd, the Board “having determined after investigation that Belle White was a ‘front’ for the noncomplying Local 1250.” . The Court in its opinion stated that plaintiff Belle White was and still is a member of Local 1250; that she was at the time of the filing of her petition with the Board not only an active member of the Local but was also a shop steward and a member of the Grievance Committee; that the Board found that she was a “front” for the Local and that since the latter was not entitled to a hearing under Section 9(c) of the Act the Board was justified in refusing her a hearing “in her attempt, on behalf of the Local, to evade the provisions of the Act and defeat its purposes.” The Court in the course of its opinion, in commenting on the Board’s action stated: “It might be observed, parenthetically, that the action of the Board was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but had ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. White v. Herzog

2. ““Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act (Title 29 U.S.C.A. Section 160 ) is the only section which confers jurisdiction on the courts. Section 10(e) gives the Board power to apply to the courts for enforcement of its orders; and section 10(f) is a similar section giving the privilege of judicial review to ‘any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board.’ But both these sections are confined to orders with respect to unfair labor practices. The Act nowhere authorizes a direct review of a representation order, or of a ‘decertification’ order under the Act as amended. It does, however, provide an indirect review in section 9(d) which directs that when an order under section 10(c) prohibiting an unfair labor practice has been based in part upon a certification following an investigation pursuant to section 9(c) and is to be enforced or reviewed under section 10(e) or 10(f) the record of the certification and investigation shall be included in the transcript. A majority of the court believes that Congress has dealt in section 9(d) with reviews of certification and ‘decertification,’ and has provided therein the only relief it means to grant on that subject. * * *. Except where the Constitution requires it, judicial review of administrative action may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Elm City Broadcasting Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board