DHL Express, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that that is enough to preserve an issue for appeal
• distinguishing between an argument challenging the “validity of [a] presumption” and one challenging the “application of that presumption”
• considering whether “petitioner’s brief in support of its exceptions adequately put the Board on notice of the grounds on which the petitioner is objecting” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[T]he ALJ carefully considered the type, duration, and frequency of work and nonwork occurring in the hallway prior to concluding that it should be considered a ‘mixed-use’ area.”
• “[T]he ALJ carefully considered the type, duration, and frequency of work and nonwork occurring in the hallway prior to concluding that it should be considered a ‘mixed-use’ area.”
• \deference is not warranted where the Board fails to adequately explain its reasoning\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).