Illinois Cent. R. v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
112 F.2d 959 · 1940
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1983 · most notably Moore v. Illinois Central Railroad (1941), Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. Koppal (1953)
15 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 151A · 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 153 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 155 (Railway Labor Act)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Texas Co v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks · Adair v. United States · Wichita Royalty Co v. City Nat Bank of Wichita Falls
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But respondáfct says that there is another reason why the judgment in its favor should be sustained. This reason, according to respondent, is that both the, District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to hold that Moore’s suit was prematurely brought because of his failure to exhaust the administrative remedies granted him by the Railway Labor Act (May 20, 1926) 44 Stat. 577 [chap. 347], as amended (June 21, 1934) 48 Stat. 1185 [chap. 691], * * * 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. But we find nothing in that Act which purports to take away from the courts the jurisdiction to determine a controversy over a wrongful discharge or to make an administrative finding a pre requisite to filing a suit in court. In support of its contention, the railroad points especially to section 153 (i), which, as amended in 1934, provides that disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements ‘shall 'be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; hut, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.’ And in connection with this statutory language the railroad also directs our attention to a provision in the agreement between the Trainmen and the railroad”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The provision in the collective agreement for a hearing before the carrier’s officers, with appeal to the highest, is in line with the requirements of the statute, but neither it nor the statute intends to make the employer’s adverse decision binding on the employee. The requirement that relief be sought up through the highest operating officer seems to be a prerequisite to an appeal to the Adjustment Board, but not to a suit in court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.