Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
- Decided
- February 26, 1951
- Docket
- 40
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 8,363 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that "the ‘substantial evidence’ standard is not modified in any way when the Board and its examiner disagree” — Bally's Park Place, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (2011)
- holding that reviewing court may not displace agency’s choice between “two fairly conflicting views” of evidence — Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy (2008)
- holding that "[t]he `substantial evidence' standard is not modified in any way when the Board and its examiner disagree" — Kiewit Power Constructors Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (2011)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The essential issue raised by this case and its companion, Labor Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., post, p. 498, is the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act and the legislation colloquially known as the Taft-Hartley Act on the duty of Courts of Appeals when called upon to review orders of the National Labor Relations Board.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted enforcement of an order directing, in the main, that petitioner reinstate with back pay an employee found to have been discharged because he gave testimony under the Wagner Act and cease and desist from discriminating against any employee who files charges or gives testimony under that Act. The court below, Judge Swan dissenting, decreed full enforcement of the order. 179 F. 2d 749. Because the views of that court regarding the effect of the new legislation on the relation between the Board and the Courts of Appeals in the enforcement of the Board’s orders conflicted with those of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [1] we brought both cases here. 339 U. S. 951 and 339 U. S. 962. The clash of opinion obviously required settlement by this Court. [*477] I.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474 (1951)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.