115 Ill. 2d 1 - Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. (1988), 133 Ill. 2d 295 - Healy v. Vaupel (1990)
23 federal appellate · 75 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.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act)
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney · 74 Ill. 2d 172 - Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the claims would still fall entirely outside the preemptive sphere of section 301. Neither an employer nor a union can strip an employee of the protections of Illinois law by merely restating the rights and obligations that arise thereunder in a private labor agreement. Gonzalez, 104 Ill.Dec. at 756, 503 N.E.2d at 313. We reject this reasoning. The Supreme Court has stated that whether a state tort claim is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘In extending the pre-emptive effect of section 301 beyond suits for breach of contract, it would be inconsistent with congressional intent under that section to pre-empt state rules that proscribe conduct or establish rights and obligations, independent of a labor contract.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) (Gonzalez, 115 Ill. 2d at 7-8 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hether or not one agrees that as a matter of State law 'just cause' includes retaliatory discharge is simply irrelevant.... Thus, a State court lacks authority to declare that as a matter of State law a given claim is or is not within the scope of the 'just cause' provision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.