Case Citator › National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
322 U.S. 111
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1964–1972
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. was superseded by statute as to its broad test for deciding who is an employee under the National Labor Relations Act. Congress's 1947 amendment excluded independent contractors, and the Supreme Court held that employee status under the amended Act turns on general agency principles.
More on how this was screened

All 33 flagged citations have been read; the three distinct confirmed treatments are listed below. Later courts continue to cite Hearst's separate discussion of deference to the Labor Board.

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.

33 later cases cite National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.; 33 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 National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.?

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

Superseded by statute

  • The Supreme Court recognized that the 1947 amendment overruled Hearst's broad definition of an employee under the National Labor Relations Act.

    Boire v. Greyhound Corp. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3). The effect of this provision was to overrule Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court held that the 1947 amendment displaced Hearst's economic and policy test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors under the Act.

    National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Initially this Court held in NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, that “Whether . . . the term ‘employee’ includes [particular] workers . . . must be answered primarily from the history, terms and purposes of the legislation.” 322 U. S., at 124. Thus the standard was one of economic and policy considerations within the labor field. Congressional reaction to this construction of the Act was adverse and Congress passed an amendment specifically excluding “any individual having the status of an independent contractor” from the definition of “employee” contained in § 2 (3) of the Act. The obvious purpose of this amendment was to have the Board and the courts apply general agency principles in distinguishing between employees and independent contractors under the Act.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The D.C. Circuit rejected a union's attempt to revive Hearst's economic approach to the amended Act's secondary boycott rule.

    Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile & Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. National Labor Relations Board · D.C. Circuit · filed

    The Union’s economic and policy arguments closely resemble those which were accepted by the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170 (1944), but were later expressly overruled by Congress in 1947, mandating a return to the traditional, common law analysis.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. 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