Brown v. C. Volante Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
194 F.3d 351 · 1999
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably White v. ABCO Engineering Corp. (2000), Operating Engineers Local 139 Health Benefit Fund v. Gustafson Construction Corp. (2001)
16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · National Labor Relations Board v. Katz · Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co. · Cronin v. Aetna Life Insurance
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“graft a signature requirement onto Section 302(c)(5)(B).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the Board has occasion to interpret collective-bargaining agreements in the context of unfair labor practice adjudication, the Board is neither the sole nor the primary source of authority in such matters. "Arbitrators and courts are still the principal sources of contract interpretation." Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 , "authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal law for the enforcement of ... collective bargaining agreements." We would risk the development of conflicting principles were we to defer to the Board in its interpretation of the contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Appellant presented no evidence at the damages hearing that it notified the Union of its employment of outside drivers. Appellant cannot, accordingly, invoke the protection of the ... CBA provision [stating that an employer becomes responsible for compliance two days after the Union notifies the employer that a truck supplier or subcontractor is non-compliant], and the district court did not err in crediting the auditor’s testimony that appellant owed contributions for these employees’ work.”
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.