Citation network
Nlrb Vs. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 28, 1975
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
NLRB v. SearsSearch
-
Roebuck & Co. - 421 U.S. 132 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court NLRB v. SearsSearch
-
Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) National Labor Relations Board v. SearsSearch
-
Board of unfair labor practice complaints. The Act's background and its principal objectives are described in EPA v. MinkSearch
-
NLRB v. IndianaSearch
-
in the memoranda were held to have lost whatever exempt status they had previously. See American Mail Line, Ltd. v. GulickSearch
-
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the basis of its decision in Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. RenegotiationSearch
-
from a member of the public documents which a private party could not discover in litigation with the agency. EPA v. MinkSearch
-
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. FTCSearch
-
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Tennessee Newspapers, Inc. v. FHASearch
-
EPA v. MinkSearch
-
International Paper Co. v. FPCSearch
-
Ackerly v. LeySearch
-
Boeing Airplane Co. v. CoggeshallSearch
-
O'Keefe v. BoeingSearch
-
Walled Lake Door Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Zacher v. UnitedSearch
-
Clark v. PearsonSearch
-
GSA v. BensonSearch
-
Banercraft Clothing Co. v. RenegotiationSearch
-
Tennessean Newspapers, Inc. v. FHASearch
-
agency and have been held by the lower courts to be outside the protection of Exemption 5. Bannercraft Clothing Co. v. RenegotiationSearch
-
Cuneo v. SchlesingerSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 368, 484 F.2d 1086 (1973), cert. denied sub nom. Rosen v. VaughnSearch
-
Ash Grove Cement Co. v. FTCSearch
-
and the case law clearly makes the attorney's work-product rule of Hickman v. TaylorSearch
-
U. S. 495 (1947), applicable to Government attorneys in litigation. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AndersonSearch
-
Thill Securities Corp. v. NewSearch
-
J. H. Rutter Rex Mfg. Co., Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
Dudek v. CircuitSearch
-
decision can -- representing, as it does, an unreviewable rejection of the charge filed by the private party. Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
a)(2)(A). This conclusion is consistent with our recent holding in ITT v. ElectricalSearch
-
law requires the agency to prepare or which the agency has decided for its own reasons to create. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. FTCSearch
-
court opinion on the legal issue. Under such circumstances, we normally decline to consider a legal claim, Ramsey v. MineSearch
-
Adickes v. S.HSearch
-
at 12. Any decision of the Exemption 7 issue in this case would have to be under the Act, as amended, Fusari v. SteinbergSearch
-
dealing with the contract successorship doctrine of Burns International Detective Agency v. NLRBSearch
-
for a time by a stay issued by the District Court, later reversed by the Court of Appeals, Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court NLRB v. SearsSearch
-
National Labor Relations Board v. SearsSearch
-
See American Mail Line, Ltd. v. GulickSearch
-
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. RenegotiationSearch
-
Boeing Airplane Co. v. CoggeshallSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial