TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Company, Tire Test Fleet Branch

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ARMSTRONG TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, TIRE TEST FLEET BRANCH, Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co., Tire Test Fleet Branch, 265 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 7, 1959
Docket
No. 15635_1
Judges
Hutcheson, Rives, Jones
Citations
265 F.2d 21244 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 22031959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4887

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

It is and has been the general practice in this court to grant leave to file petitions for rehearing in all cases where not too belatedly filed if it appears that the petition has probable merit. We must, therefore, reject the view that, in reviewing orders of the National Labor Relations Board and considering this petition for late filing, the court acts more in the public interest and should, therefore, act differently than when reviewing such petitions for leave filed in other cases.

Examining the petition for rehearing submitted with the petition for leave to file, as we do all other such petitions, we are of the clear opinion that the claimed discrepancies between the facts as stated in the opinion and as they appear of record were and are of no real significance and that, accepting them as the discrepancies they are claimed to be, they do not affect the ratio decidendi of the decision. This was:

“As the examiner found and the record reflects, the facts as to the icehouse business and Albrecht’s failure to exercise diligence to secure employment are such we think as to put beyond question that the Board’s conclusion that Albrecht’s conduct in that period measured up to the standards of diligence and good faith entitling him to make claim for back wages for that period is without substantial evidenti-ary support, indeed is contrary to the evidence.”

The petition for leave to file is, therefore, denied.

RIVES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

How later courts describe this case

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

1963: 11966: 21969: 119632026peak 1966 · 2

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