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. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACHINERY CO., 1942 — 315 U.S. 282 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACHINERY CO.
315 U.S. 28286 L. Ed. 848·Supreme Court of the United States·1942
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACHINERY CO.
No. 188.
Argued February 3, 1942.
Decided February 16, 1942.
Mr. Ernest A. Gross, with whom Solicitor General Fahy and Messrs. Archibald Cox, Robert B. Watts, and Morris P. Glushien were on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. John Harrington for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Upon examination of the record, the Court concludes that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584; Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Labor Board, 312 U. S. 660. The judgment is therefore reversed with directions to enforce the Board’s order in full, but with the modification proposed by the Board to conform to the decision in Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board, 311 U. S. 7. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Roberts are of opinion that the order as modified should be enforced except with respect to the alleged discriminatory discharges of Warner, Jr., and Jordan, which they think are without the support of substantial evidence.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.