Special Litigation Involving NLRB; Outcome of Proceedings in Which Court Decisions Issued in Fiscal Year 1989

p. 259. The crop is a landscape table printed sideways on the page (text runs bottom-to-top); it was read in that orientation. Thirteen columns: stub plus four court groups of three ("Number decided", "Upholding Board position", "Contrary to Board position"), with "Number decided" a tall heading spanning the "Court determination" level. ADDITIVITY PROBLEM, row "Action by other parties": the printed subtotal exceeds the sum of its four printed component rows ("To review settlement agreements" + "To review nonfinal orders" + "To restrain NLRB from" + "To compel NLRB to") by 3 in Total—all courts / Number decided (37 vs 34) and Upholding (32 vs 29), by 2 in In district courts / Number decided (21 vs 19) and Upholding (17 vs 15), and by 1 in In bankruptcy courts / Number decided (3 vs 2) and Upholding (3 vs 2). The courts-of-appeals columns and all three "Contrary to Board position" columns do reconcile. Every other subtotal and every row's "decided = upholding + contrary" and "total = appeals + district + bankruptcy" identity checks exactly. The missing block (3/3/0 total, 0/0/0 appeals, 2/2/0 district, 1/1/0 bankruptcy) would most plausibly sit on one of the two "To review ..." rows, both of which I read as all zeros at this scan resolution; those twelve cells on rows "To review settlement agreements" and "To review nonfinal orders" are the least certain in the grid. Values are transcribed as read, not corrected. ROW-COUNT AMBIGUITY: two printed lines of leader dots carry no legible label text — one immediately after "Other application of Rule" and one immediately after "Other—Pay fees under Equal Access to Justice Act". I have treated both as wrapped continuations of the preceding label (one row each), which is supported by "Other application of Rule" being grammatically incomplete as printed (it likely continues with a rule number that is illegible here). If instead they are separate printed rows, then "Other application of Rule" would be 0 across and the following row would carry the 1/0/1 (total) and 1/0/1 (district) values shown here; the "Other—Pay fees" line would be unaffected numerically. Within "To restrain NLRB from", the appeals, district and bankruptcy values for "Proceeding in unfair labor practice case" vs "Enforcing subpoena" were assigned by the forcing arithmetic of the subtotals; my raw visual impression placed the courts-of-appeals "1" and the bankruptcy "2 2 0" one row higher, which the row totals rule out. "Comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" carries a raised 1 footnote marker, but no footnote text appears within this crop.

p. 260. The crop is the final (continued) page of Table 21 and carries the full four-level column headings plus only the last four body rows; the earlier body rows are on the preceding page. 13 columns: stub plus four court groups of three. Footnote 1 concerns FOIA cases, so its marker most likely belongs on the row label "Pay fees under FOIA", but at this scan resolution I cannot distinguish a raised "1" from the leader dots that immediately follow the label, so no marker is written into any cell. No footnote marker is legible on any heading or value either. "Objection to Board's proof of claim": the final word renders ambiguously in the scan and could be read as "chain"; transcribed as "claim" (the standard bankruptcy term, and this row's only decided proceeding is in bankruptcy courts). "Other" is a subtotal row, not a bare section label: its printed values equal the sum of the three rows beneath it in every column, and the three court-group columns sum to the "Total—all courts" columns in every row, so the grid is internally consistent as transcribed.