Hamilton v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
160 F.2d 465 · 1947
Citation profile
26 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1982 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Globe Wireless, Ltd. (1951), National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc. (1952)
26 federal appellate ·
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. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin · National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. · Falbovs v. United States · Allen-Bradley Local No 1111 United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Act specifically provides that during the cooling-off period the contractor and his employees ‘shall continue production under all the conditions which prevailed when such dispute arose.’ The phrase ‘shall continue production’ is not ambiguous. It is the exact opposite of discontinuing production or discontinuing the work which results in production. The Act requires not only that the contractor continue production, but also- that the employees continue production. The employees cannot be permitted to discontinue work and at the same time be required to continue production. Section 6 of the Act, dealing with Government operation of plants, specifically preserves to the employees by a separate sentence the right to cease work, but such a reservation of right is omitted from Section 8 dealing with war production under a war contractor. Such an intentional omission is significant and important * * *. [Citing cases] The essential purpose of Section 8 is to prevent interruptions to war production; this purpose is defeated if the Act permitted employees to discontinue work during the cooling-off period. It is another purpose of the Act that the employees participate in a secret ballot during the cooling-off period to determine whether or not any interruption to> the war production should take place; this purpose is also defeated if individual employees, regardless of their number, are permitted to cease work before such a ballot is taken, and irrespective of any result of s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“who willfully fails or refuses to perform such act shall be liable for damages resulting from such failure or refusal to any person injured thereby and to the United States if so injured,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“which threaten seriously to interrupt war production.”
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.