Mitchell v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co.’s Empirical Analysis
184 F.2d 837 · 1950
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1984
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Adair v. United States · Coppage v. State · Littell v. Evening Star Newspaper Co. · Swart v. Huston · Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . It is not the function of the courts in the absence of a contract to compel a person to accept or retain another in his employ, nor is it the function of the courts to compel any person against his will to remain in the employ of another. Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U. S. 1 , 35 S. Ct. 240 , 59 L. Ed. 441 ; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 174 , 28 S. Ct. 277 , 52 L. Ed. 436 . This leaves only the question of whether defendant owed plaintiff any legal duty to retain him in its employ. No claim is made that the discharge was in violation of any right given the plaintiff by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. A. § 151 et seq., or by any state law. No question of public health, safety or welfare is involved so we have no difficulty in determining that the complaint did not state a cause of action. In the absence of a contract or statutory provision an employer may discharge an employee without cause or reason and owes no duty to continue the employment of an employee. 35 Am. Jur., Master and Servant, Sec. 34.” (p. 838.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Plaintiff . . . presents a novel theory that the complaint is not based upon an unlawful discharge but is an action to recover damages for interference with plaintiff’s right as a citizen to sue in the courts for redress of wrongs. The discharge cannot be so easily disassociated from the plaintiff’s claim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.