Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 22, 1984No. 82-818Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*535Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice White, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The Court holds that under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code1 a Bankruptcy Court should permit a debtor in possession2 to reject a collective-bargaining agreement upon a showing that the agreement “burdens the estate, and that after careful scrutiny, the equities balance in favor of rejecting the labor contract.” Ante, at 526. This test properly accommodates the policies of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Bankruptcy Code, and I therefore join Parts I and…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. LivingstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. National Labor Relations Board v. KatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API