Case Citator › Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
305 U.S. 197
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
59 of 59
Citing cases (total)
59
Treatment dates
1940
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Criticized: the Ninth Circuit questioned a distinction in Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board's discussion of union contracts. Its substantial evidence standard remains in use.
More on how this was screened

All 59 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed criticism and a separate state law choice are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

59 later cases cite Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board; 59 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Ninth Circuit said Consolidated Edison overlooked that both Board orders it compared ran only against employers, calling its distinction between the union contract cases unsound.

    National Labor Relations Board v. Sterling Electric Motors, Inc. · Ninth Circuit · filed

    In the Consolidated Edison case the court was required to apply the principles of “fair play” to the contract there in question and, in a dictum, it distinguished it from the contract in the Pennsylvania Greyhound case. In making that distinction, the Edison opinion fails to note that the order set aside in the Edison case and that upheld in the Greyhound case “ran against” the employer only. It “did not run against” either the absent association in the earlier or the absent Brotherhood in the later case. If failure of the order destroying the Greyhound association’s contract of claimed self-organization to run against the association justifies it, then the order set aside in the Edison case should have been held valid.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace