Amazon Cotton Mill Co. v. Textile Workers Union’s Empirical Analysis
167 F.2d 183 · 1948
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 15 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1999 · most notably Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1955), International Association Machinists v. Gonzales (1958)
58 federal appellate · 15 district · 14 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 15 U.S.C. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 17 (§ 6 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 29 U.S.C. § 101 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 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. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 178 (§ 208 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board · National Licorice Co. v. National Labor 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties. “(b) Any labor organization which represents employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act and any employer whose activities affect commerce as defined in this Act shall be bound by the acts of its agents. Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States. Any money judgment against a labor organization in a district court of the United States shall be enforceable only against the organization as an entity and against its assets, and shall not be enforceable against any individual member or his assets.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of June 23,1947 (Act of July 5, 1935, e. 372, 49 Stat. 449 , 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151-166 [ 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151-166 ], Pub.No.198, 74th Cong., as amended by Act of June 23, 1947, Pub.Law 101, 80th Cong.), effective August 23, 1947, in Sec. 8 (b) (4) (A) [ 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (b) (4) (A)], renders it a Union Unfair Labor Practice for a Union to require an employer not to handle or sell products of any other producer, processor or manufacturer, and provides further, in Sec. 10 (h) [ 29 U.S.C.A. § 160 ] thereof that Courts not be limited in granting relief in enforcing orders of the Board, pursuant to Sec. (9) of that Act [29 U. S.C.A. § 159] giving the Board power to enforce the provisions of Sec. (8), by the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. “To the extent that petitioners allege a ‘dispute’ between them and the respondent concerning a sale by the latter of a certain non-union product as a ground for bringing this cause within the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-La Guardia Act, such a dispute can no longer, by virtue of the express provisions of the New Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, be treated as a labor dispute rendering the United States District Court powerless to issue injunctive process.” The corresponding-contention for appellee Dixie here concerning the effect of the Labor Management Relations Act on the power of the District Court to issue the injunction in this ca”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is nothing in the history of the act, the reports of committees or the debates in Congress which even vaguely supports the contention that its effect was to vest jurisdiction in the District Courts to grant relief against unfair labor practices.””
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.