Supreme Court of the United States, 1952

American Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 13, 1952

344 U.S. 812; 73 S. Ct. 10; 97 L. Ed. 632; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2681 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Elisha Hanson, William K. Van Allen and Arthur B. Hanson for petitioner., Solicitor General Perlman, George J. Bott, David P. Findling, Mozart G. Ratner and Bernard Dunau filed a memorandum for respondent, stating that counsel do not oppose the grant of the petition limited to the question of the interpretation of § 8 (b) (6) of the National Labor Relations Act.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

National Labor Relations Board v. Aluminum Tubular Corporation and American Flagpole Equipment Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1962)
Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449 v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1956)
Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449 v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1956)
Body & Tank Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1964)
National Labor Relations Board v. Ephraim Haspel (2d Cir. 1955)
Bausch & Lomb Optical Company v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1954)
Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1954)
National Labor Relations Board v. Epstein (3d Cir. 1953)
Leonard v. National Labor Relations Board. National Labor Relations Board v. Leonard (9th Cir. 1953)

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

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to question No. 2 presented by the petition for the writ, i. e.:

“Whether the demand and insistence of the International Typographical Union that publishers pay employees in their composing rooms for setting ‘bogus’ violated Section 8 (b)(6) of the National Labor Relations Act in view of the fact that composing room employees perform no service incident or essential to the production of a newspaper in their handling of such ‘bogused’ material.”

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