National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Cambria Clay Products Company, Respondent, 229 F.2d 433 (6th Cir. 1955)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 229 F.2d 433 (6th Cir. 1955) August 12, 1955

George J. Bott, A. Norman Somers, Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Miller, Searl & Fitch, Portsmouth, Ohio, J. Mack Swigert, Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.

Before McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and GOURLEY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.


The motion of the National Labor Relations Board that the Court reconsider its order of April 5, 1955 sustaining respondent's motion of February 24, 1955, together with its suggestion for en banc reconsideration, having been considered by the Court;

And the Court being of the opinion that the uniform procedure heretofore followed by the Court should not be departed from, namely, that in cases where the appeal was heard, and the judgment or order complained of was decided, by a regular Court consisting of three judges only, a petition to rehear or to reconsider should not be considered by the Court en banc;

It Is Ordered that said motion to reconsider is overruled. Sec. 160(e), Title 29, U.S.C.A.; Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 68 S. Ct. 972, 92 L. Ed. 1212; N. L. R. B. v. National Gas Co., 8 Cir., 215 F.2d 160; Compare: Carpenter v. Wabash Railway Co., 309 U.S. 23, 60 S. Ct. 416, 84 L. Ed. 558, rehearing denied, 309 U.S. 695, 60 S. Ct. 585, 84 L. Ed. 1035; Schilder v. Gusik, 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 662, 664.

Judge McALLISTER is of the opinion that the motion to reconsider should be granted.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.