McKinney Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Creative Vision Resources, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing the Third Circuit’s treatment and agreeing that “our two-prong review of § 10(j) petitions for injunctive relief is not inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent”
• finding the district court abused its discretion when it enjoined conduct in 2014 to preserve a status quo from 2011
• “[Ijnjunctive relief should issue when harms are ongoing, yet incomplete and likely further to harm the union or its supporters in the workforce.”
• “[F]or purposes of § 10(j), a labor practice must lead to exceptional injury, as measured against other unfair labor practices” and “a district court . . . must issue specific findings of fact that suggest harm requiring § 10(j) injunctive relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).