Flaherty v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 401 (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959)
Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Yakus v. United States · Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch · Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village · Lockerty v. Phillips
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Any, member or subordinate body of a labor organization affected by any violation of this sub-chapter (except section 461 of this title) may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the labor organization for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Trusteeships shall be established and administered by a labor organization over a subordinate body only in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the organization which has assumed trusteeship over the subordinate body and for the purpose of correcting corruption or financial malpractice, assuring the performance of collective bargaining agreements or other duties of a bargaining representative, restoring democratic procedures, or otherwise carrying out the legitimate objects of such labor organization.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(4) Since Sec. 304(a) provides both an administrative and judicial remedy for violations of Title III of the 1959 Labor Act, in order to determine whether the remedies follow one another in sequence or are corir current, this Court must first look for guidance to the principle that a Federal court has only the jurisdiction which the Congress has expressly conferred upon it (U.S.Const, art. Ill; see Lockerty v. Phillips, 1943, 319 U.S. 182, 187-188 , 63 S.Ct. 1019 , 87 L.Ed. 1339 ), and next to its duty as ‘a court of equity to strike a proper balance between the needs of the plaintiff and the consequences of giving the desired relief’ (Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 1947, 333 U.S. 426, 431 , 68 S.Ct. 641, 644 , 92 L.Ed. 784 ; see: Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 1954, 347 U.S. 535, 540 , 74 S.Ct. 745 , 98 L.Ed. 933 ; Petroleum Exploration v. Public Service Commission, 1938, 304 U.S. 209, 218-219 , 58 S.Ct. 834 , 82 L.Ed. 1294 ; and Sierra Drawn Steel Corp. v. Gregory, D.C.S.D.Cal.1953, 115 F. Supp. 545, 547 ), and finally to the ‘long settled-rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted’ (Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 1938, 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 , 58 S.Ct. 459, 463 , 82 L.Ed. 638 ; see: Macauley v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 1946, 327 U.S. 540, 543-544 , 66 S.Ct. 712 , 90 L.Ed. 839 ; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. State Tax Commission, 1924, 266 U.S. 265, 26”
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.