TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stephens v. National Labor Relations Board

Howard Stephens, Jr., Joe Louis Barnett, Joseph J. Carter, and Ronald Moody v. National Labor Relations Board, and Local 1838, International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-Cio, and Charles Rogers, Its President, Intervenors

Stephens v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 430 F.2d 1180 (4th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 12, 1970
Docket
No. 14153
Citations
430 F.2d 118075 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2432

Opinion

430 F.2d 1180

Howard STEPHENS, Jr., Joe Louis Barnett, Joseph J. Carter, and Ronald Moody, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, and Local 1838, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, and Charles Rogers, its President, Intervenors.

No. 14153.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 6, 1970.

Decided October 12, 1970.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Ellison D. Smith, IV, Columbia, S. C. (Smith & Smith, Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for petitioners.

Ira M. Goldberg, Atty., N. L. R. B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Asst. General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Eugene B. Granof, Atty., N. L. R. B., on the brief), for respondent.

Seymour M. Teach, Norfolk, Va. (Breit, Rutter, Cohen, Ermlich & Friedman, Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for intervenors.

Before BRYAN, WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

On petition to review and set aside the Board's order dismissing a complaint that the Union had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of §§ 8(b) (1) (A) and 8(b) (2) of the Act, we find substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board's conclusion that the Union did not violate the Act in the particulars charged. We decline to set aside the Board's order.

2

Petition denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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