Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 F.2d 143 - National Labor Relations Board v. Scullin Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board v. Scullin Steel Co.’s Empirical Analysis

161 F.2d 143 · 1947

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (1956), Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. National Labor Relations Board (1966)

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

12019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)

Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. · H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Southern Ss Co v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Sands 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As all the unfair labor practices ... occurred during the term of the Respondents’ collective bargaining contract, the execution and maintenance of which are not under attack, we do not believe that an order requiring the parties to suspend their bargaining relationship pending an election is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, as there is no basis for a finding that' the contract between the parties was a consequence of the unfair labor practices found, or that the contract thwarts any policy of the Act, we reject the [ALJ’s] recommendation for the issuance of a cease-recognition order.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he authority of a union duly designated or selected as a bargaining agent can be terminated only by the agreement of the parties or by operation of law.”
    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.