Universal Camera Corp. v.
NLRB case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
340 U.S. 474, 71 S. Ct.
456, 95 L. Ed. 456, 27 LRRM 2373 (1951)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
sought review of the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit decreeing enforcement of respondent's order
requiring petitioner to reinstate an employee with back pay and to
desist from discriminating against employees who filed charges or
testified under the Wagner Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160.
FACTS: Petitioner was ordered by respondent to reinstate with back pay an employee found to have been discharged because the employee gave testimony under the Wagner Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160, and to cease and desist from discriminating against employees who filed charges or testified under the Wagner Act. The court of appeals decreed full enforcement of the order. Because the views of the court of appeals regarding the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 1001 et seq., and the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(e) (the Acts), on the relation between respondent and appellate courts in the enforcement of respondent's orders conflicted with another circuit's court of appeals, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Court held that what was intended under both of the Acts was that a reviewing court was not barred from setting aside respondent's decision when that court could not conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision was substantial. Thus, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded.
CONCLUSION: The judgment in favor of respondent was vacated and remanded where the appellate court erroneously believed that when determining the substantiality of evidence supporting respondent's decision, the appellate court was limited to reviewing only evidence that justified that decision.
FACTS: Petitioner was ordered by respondent to reinstate with back pay an employee found to have been discharged because the employee gave testimony under the Wagner Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160, and to cease and desist from discriminating against employees who filed charges or testified under the Wagner Act. The court of appeals decreed full enforcement of the order. Because the views of the court of appeals regarding the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 1001 et seq., and the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(e) (the Acts), on the relation between respondent and appellate courts in the enforcement of respondent's orders conflicted with another circuit's court of appeals, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Court held that what was intended under both of the Acts was that a reviewing court was not barred from setting aside respondent's decision when that court could not conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision was substantial. Thus, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded.
CONCLUSION: The judgment in favor of respondent was vacated and remanded where the appellate court erroneously believed that when determining the substantiality of evidence supporting respondent's decision, the appellate court was limited to reviewing only evidence that justified that decision.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment