Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Jac. Feinberg Hosiery Mill, Inc.

134 F.2d 620

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1943-04-14
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board, which is resisted on the ground that the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. The questions involved are pure questions of fact and no useful purpose would be served by an analysis of the evidence which was fully arrayed and appraised by the Board in its decision and order. 1942, 38 N.L.R.B. 1359. We think that the findings were amply supported and that the order should be enforced. Complaint is made of the order in that it runs against the successors and assigns of respondent, as well as against its officers and agents, but there is nothing to show that this was not proper in the premises.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed National Labor Relations Board v. Jac. Feinberg Hosiery Mill, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
NATIONAL L. REL. BD. v. JAC. FEINBERG HOS. M.,134 F.2d 620(4th Cir. 1943)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. JAC. FEINBERG HOSIERY MILL,
Inc., Respondent.
No. 5024.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
April 14, 1943.
On Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Colonel C. Sawyer, Sr. Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D.C. (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel, Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and David Findling and William T. Whitsett, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Frank Buckley, of Washington, D.C. (Buckley Danzansky and Joseph B. Danzansky, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board, which is resisted on the ground that the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. The questions involved are pure questions of fact and no useful purpose would be served by an analysis of the evidence which was fully arrayed and appraised by the Board in its decision and order. 1942, 38 N.L.R.B. 1359. We think that the findings were amply supported and that the order should be enforced. Complaint is made of the order in that it runs against the successors and assigns of respondent, as well as against its officers and agents, but there is nothing to show that this was not proper in the premises.

Order enforced.Page 685