TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Phillip Davisson, William Davisson, Oscar Scherrer and Warner Scherrer, D/B/A Scherrer and Davisson Logging Company

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. Phillip DAVISSON, William Davisson, Oscar Scherrer and Warner Scherrer, D/B/A Scherrer and Davisson Logging Company, Respondents

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Davisson, 221 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 25, 1955
Docket
No. 14463
Judges
Healy, Per Curiam, Pope, Stephens
Citations
221 F.2d 802

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before us on petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of an order issued against respondents.

The charge made was that respondents, a logging concern, refused to hire one Cook because of his participation in strike activities, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of section 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a)(3), and interfering with and coercing Cook in the exercise of rights guaranteed by section 7, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157 , in violation of section 8(a)(1). The trial examiner found the charge to be sustained by the evidence. The Board approved the findings and entered the usual cease and desist order, requiring also an offer of employment to be made and compensation paid for lost earnings.

The evidence pro and con is in conflict throughout. That produced by the General Counsel would, if believed, not only support but would conclusively establish the truth of the charge made against the respondents. But the latter contend that the testimony accepted by the Board is inherently incredible. We do not so regard it. Thus we have before us merely a question of credibility, which is not one for this court to resolve.

The findings of the Board are substantially supported upon the record considered as a whole.

A decree enforcing the order will accordingly be entered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1960: 11966: 119602026peak 1960 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list