C. David Beidleman v. The Stroh Brewery Company’s Empirical Analysis
182 F.3d 225 · 1999
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Podobnik v. United States Postal Service (2005), Eloy Garley v. Sandia Corporation Sandia Laboratories (2001)
8 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]uits for violations of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce ... may be brought in any District Court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]nce an area of state law has been completely pre-empted, any claim purportedly based on that pre-empted state law is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law.... The complete pre-emption corollary to the well-pleaded complaint rule is applied primarily in cases raising claims pre-empted by § 301 of the LMRA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependant upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim or dismissed as preempted”
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.