Entergy Mississippi, 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 “the United States and its agencies are not subject to the defense of laches when enforcing a public right”
• holding that the evidence “arguably” meets the assignment standard
• finding that because the Board ignored relevant facts in the record in its reasoning, the Board’s decision could not survive substantial evidence review; vacating in part and remanding for further proceedings on the relevant issue
• “To ensure that unions stay loyal to workers’ interests, [the Act] excludes ‘supervisors’ from the class of ‘employees’ guaranteed the right to unionize and bargain.”
• “[S]ubstantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that dispatchers are accountable only for their own mistakes[, a]nd under Oakwood, this is sufficient to show that dispatchers do not ‘responsibly direct’ field employees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).