Commer v. McEntee’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 501 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 411 · 29 U.S.C. § 412 · 29 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The language of the Local 375 Constitution is clear and unmistakable, and the interpretation of that provision by both the Trial Officer and the full Judicial Panel was both literal and reasonable. Therefore, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [defendants are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Accordingly, summary judgment is entered in favor of the defendants with respect to the claim under LMRA § 301.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There is simply nothing in the statute that permits Section 501 claims against a labor organization for alleged violations of individual officers and/or representatives. The courts of appeal that have addressed this issue have repeatedly held that an action against a labor organization under Section 501(b) is not cognizable as a matter of law.””
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.