Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Loucks

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court was unable to meaningfully review ERB’s conclusion because ERB’s order “le [ft] considerable uncertainty as to the precise basis of and reasoning for its conclusion”
• explaining that, in reviewing for substantial reason, “[w]e examine * * * the reasoning that leads ERB from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts” (emphasis in original)
• examining the reasoning that leads ERB from the facts it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts
• “For an ‘in [the exercise of protected rights]’ claim, * * * neither motive nor the extent to which employees actually were coerced is controlling.”
• in reviewing for substantial reason, “we review ERB’s reasoning for whether ERB correctly applied legal principles in the individual case before it”
• because PECBA adopted to model NLRA, court looked to “cases decided under the fed- eral act—and particularly to cases decided before 1973, the year in which PECBA was adopted—for guidance in inter- preting PECBA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).