Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
INSURANCE AGENTS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 260 F.2d 736
Argued September 12, 1958 Decided October 23, 1958 Certiorari Granted January 26, 1959
Mr. Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Messrs. Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., and Melvin Pollack, Atty., N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for respondent.
Mr. Nahum A. Bernstein, New York City, for Prudential Ins. Co. of America, amicus curiae. Mr. K. Norman Diamond, Washington, D. C., was on the brief.
Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the same question of law as was presented in Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1955, 97 U.S.App. D.C. 35, 227 F.2d 409, certiorari granted 350 U.S. 1004, 76 S.Ct. 650, 100 L.Ed. 867, certiorari vacated 1956, 352 U.S. 864, 77 S.Ct. 90, 1 L.Ed.2d 73. Amicus attempts to distinguish this case from Textile Workers Union, but we find no critical difference between the two cases. On the authority of that case, the order of the Board here under review must be set aside. One panel of this court will not attempt to overrule a recent precedent set by another panel, even though one or more of its members may disagree with the ruling.
So ordered.