Sheehy Enterprizes, Incorporat v. NLRB, No. 10-3688 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 14, 2011* Decided July 14, 2011 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Nos. 10 3688 & 10 2966 SHEEHY ENTERPRIZES, INC., Petitioner/Cross Respondent, v. Petition for Review and Cross Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board No. NLRB 1:25 CA 30583 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross Petitioner, and LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, STATE OF INDIANA DISTRICT COUNCIL, Intervening Cross Petitioner. * This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel pursuant to Operating Procedure 6(b). After reviewing the briefs and the record, the panel is unanimously of the view that oral argument is unnecessary. Accordingly, the appeal has been submitted on the briefs and the record alone. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). Nos. 10 3688 & 10 2966 Page 2 O R D E R This case is before us for a second time as a successive appeal under Rule 6(b) of our Operating Procedures. On April 20, 2010, we reviewed the merits of Sheehy Enterprizes challenges to the January 30, 2009 decision of a two member quorum of the National Labor Relations Board. We denied Sheehy s petition for enforcement. Subsequently, the Supreme Court rendered all the decisions of two member Board ineffectual in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635 (2010). We remanded the case to the Board for further review. The properly constituted Board took up the case and on August 10 reached the same conclusion as the previous quorum, incorporating its reasoning. Sheehy again petitions for enforcement, but there is no need to give the appeal a second look. We have already indicated that we were prepared to deny an identical petition on the merits and we complete the task here without hesitation (and without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(1)). Sheehy s petition for review is DENIED and the Board s application for enforcement is 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.
