Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 FSUPP 607 - Lund v. Woodenware Workers Union

Lund v. Woodenware Workers Union’s Empirical Analysis

1937

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
February 1962
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 1962

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

801937194019501960decided

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. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Railway Labor Act)

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Hurn v. Oursler · Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Albert Shulthis v. D a McDougal

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: “Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . The court having determined that under no circumstances can a contract between an employer and his employees be considered a subject matter for a federal court under the Wagner Act, at least in absence of an approval or sanction of that contract by the National Labor Relations Board, it must necessarily follow that plaintiff's bill of complaint does not present a substantial question arising under a federal statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “did not intend to limit in any way the actions of the minority in protesting against the agreements of the majority and generally in taking legal measures by strike to achieve redress of alleged grievances.”
    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.