14 Wash. App. 157 - Dohrer v. Wakeman’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 1993
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Walker · Moglia v. Geoghegan · 28 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Northwest Magnesite Co. · 68 Wash. 2d 75 - Hollingbery v. Dunn · National Labor Relations Board v. New Madrid Manufacturing Co.
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“paid to a trust fund established by such [employee] representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“for the sole and exclusive benefit of ... employees ... and their families and dependents”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Palino v. Casey
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.