U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1960

Bandlow v. Rothman

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 31, 1960 · Bazelon, Burger, Edgerton

278 F.2d 866; 108 U.S. App. D.C. 32 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Argued March 10, 1960., Mr. Karl M. Dollak, Bethesda, Md., for appellants., Mr. Duane B. Beeson, Atty., N. L. R. B., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for appellees., Mr. Richard J. Scupi, Atty., N. L. R. B., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Rockford Redi-Mix Co., Inc. v. Zipp (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1979)
Retail Store Employees Union Local 954 v. Rothman (D.C. Cir. 1962)
Retail Store Employees Union Local 954, Retail Clerks International Ass'n v. Rothman (D.C. Cir. 1962)
Bandlow v. Rothman (D.C. Cir. 1960)
Kolinske v. Lubbers (District Court, District of Columbia 1981)
Saez v. Goslee (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1971)
Southern California District Council of Laborers & Its Affiliated Local 1184 v. Ordman (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1970)
United Electrical Contractors Association v. Ordman (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
National Labor Relations Board v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corporation, Roane Electric Furnace Division (6th Cir. 1964)
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellants asked the District Court to require the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board to issue a complaint charging unfair labor practices. They also sought to compel the Board to set aside the General Counsel’s refusal. This appeal is from an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court was clearly right. It “has no power to order the General Counsel to issue a complaint and no power to require the Board to issue an order in a matter which is not before the Board.” Hourihan v. National Labor Relations Board, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 317, 201 F.2d 187, 188, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 930, 73 S.Ct. 792, 97 L.Ed. 1359.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.