S.J.P.R., Inc. D/B/A Sands Hotel & Casino, San Juan v. National Labor Relations Board
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Stern Produce Company, Inc. v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2024)
- Cummings v. John Morrell & Company (6th Cir. 1994)
- Cummings v. John Morrell & Co. (6th Cir. 1994)
- United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1993)
- Lakeside Community Hospital, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, and Consolidated Case Nos. 92-1375 and 93-1200 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
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
993 F.2d 913
144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2743, 301 U.S.App.D.C. 251
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
S.J.P.R., INC. d/b/a Sands Hotel & Casino, San Juan, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
No. 92-1057.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
May 3, 1993.
Before SENTELLE, HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
The petition for review and the cross-application for enforcement were considered on the record from the National Labor Relations Board, the briefs filed by the parties and oral arguments by counsel. After full review of the case, the court is satisfied that appropriate disposition of this matter does not warrant an opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 14(c).
We presume theimpartiality of an administrative law judge. See generally Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195-96 (1982). The record does not cause us to question this presumption. The NLRB did not err in ordering the ALJ to hear the case. There is substantial evidence to support each of the Section 8(a) violations the Board found. See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a). Petitioner raised but did not brief the issue of the propriety of the Board's remedy of permanent reinstatement. We therefore do not pass on this issue. See Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C.Cir. 1983); Rule 28(a), Fed.R.App.P. It is, accordingly
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied and that the cross-application for enforcement be granted.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15(b)(2).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.