§

LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN'S

21-CA-157007 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 31, 2016)
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN'S

6 Cited authorities

  1. Zimomra v. Alamo Rent-A-Car

    522 U.S. 948 (1997)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that active supervision unnecessary where challenged ordinance left defendants, car rental companies at Denver International Airport, virtually no discretionary authority in setting and collecting usage fees from their customers because usage fee determined by detailed formula

  2. HealthBridge Management, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    798 F.3d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 14–1101 14–1116. 2015-08-18 HEALTHBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. On Petition for Review and Cross–Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Erin E. Murphy argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Paul D. Clement and William R. Levi. Jared D. Cantor, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Shelby Memorial Hosp. Ass'n

    1 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 27 times
    Ordering employees to remove union patches based on uniform policy not previously enforced violated § 158

  4. Mt. Clemens General Hosp. v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 2003)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that there was no evidence that more controversial buttons had caused disturbances

  5. Washington State v. N.L.R.B

    526 F.3d 577 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that “nurses' working conditions are directly related to patient care and safety”

  6. New Breed Leasing Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    111 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that an ALJ's credibility determinations will be upheld by the court “unless they are ‘inherently incredible or patently unreasonable’ ”