Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
National Labor Relations Board v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., Inc. et al., 1941 — 314 U.S. 600 · caselaw · US
General
National Labor Relations Board v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., Inc. et al.
314 U.S. 600·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 588.
National Labor Relations Board v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., Inc. et al.
October 20, 1941.
Assistant Solicitor General Fahy and Mr. Robert B. Watts for petitioner. Mr. Lawrence C. Spieth for the Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., and Messrs. Joseph A. Padway and Herbert S. Thatcher for the International Molders’ Union of North America, Local 430, et al., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.