NLRB Stats Archive › Annual Reports › FY2003 › Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Fiscal Year 2003
Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Fiscal Year 2003
| Total proceedings | Injunction proceedings | Total dispositions | Disposition of injunctions | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total proceedings | Pending in appellate Oct. 01, 2002 | Filed in appellate fiscal year 2003 | Total dispositions | Granted | Denied | Settled | Withdrawn | Pending in appellate Sept. 30, 2003 | |
| Under Sec. 10(e) total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Under Sec. 10(j) total | 22 | 7 | 15 | 20 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(5) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3) 8(b)(1)(A) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3) 8(b)(1)(A)(2) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(5) 8(b)(1)(A) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(3) | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(4)(5) | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(5) | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(5) | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Under Sec. 10(l) total | 6 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 8(b)(4)(A) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8(b)(4)(B) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 8(b)(4)(C) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
- 1 Totals for cases identified in this table as pending on October 1, 2002, differ from the FY 2002 Annual Report due to postreport adjustments to last year's "on docket"
56 of 79 figures sit in a row or column sum that works out.
Reader’s notes
p. 195. Ten columns, read from the column rules: stub, Total proceedings, two columns under "Injunction proceedings" (Pending / Filed), Total dispositions, and five columns under "Disposition of injunctions" (Granted, Denied, Settled, Withdrawn, Pending at Sept. 30). The stub heading is blank at both levels; "Total proceedings" and "Total dispositions" are tall single headings spanning both levels. The page prints the heading block TWICE, not as side-by-side panels: the first block sits above the single "Under Sec. 10(e) total" row and is the one given in header_rows; a second, identical-layout block is printed again below it, above the 10(j) and 10(l) sections, with "district court" in place of "appellate" in the Pending columns. Its second-level headings read: "" | "Total proceedings" | "Pending in district court Oct. 01, 2002^1" | "Filed in district court fiscal year 2003" | "Total dispositions" | "Granted" | "Denied" | "Settled" | "Withdrawn" | "Pending in district court Sept. 30, 2003"; its top level is the same as the first block's. The footnote marker 1 is attached only to that second block's "Pending in district court Oct. 01, 2002" heading, so it does not appear in header_rows above. Suspected misprint, transcribed as printed: row 8(b)(4)(B), column "Total proceedings" reads 2, but the same row's Pending (1) + Filed (2) = 3, and Total dispositions (2) + Pending Sept. 30 (1) = 3. Reading it as 3 would also reconcile the "Under Sec. 10(l) total" of 6 against the detail rows (2 + 2 + 1 = 5 as printed). Every other column in both the 10(j) and 10(l) sections adds to its printed total. The crop cuts the footnote: the visible line ends at the closing quotation mark after "on docket", and at least one further line of footnote 1 continues below the bottom edge of the image. The table body itself is complete — the footnote rule follows immediately after the 8(b)(4)(C) row. The caption "Table 20.—Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Fiscal Year 2003" was omitted as instructed.
Source image
Source data: U.S. NLRB Annual Reports (public domain). Reconstruction by NLRB Stats Archive. Read by claude-opus-5 (effort max, prompt extract_v1) from the 300-dpi scan; stitched by page. Updated October 2026.