Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 F.2d 688 - National Labor Relations Board v. National Shoes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board v. National Shoes, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

208 F.2d 688 · 1953

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (1965), National Labor Relations Board v. Fitzgerald Mills Corporation, Textile Workers Union of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fitzgerald Mills Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (1963)

59 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

3901953196019701980199020002010decided

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) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance · Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he record in this case discloses none of the hostility or bitterness which is sometimes engendered in labor-management disputes” yet still finding the employer in violation of the NLRA). Indeed, in finding PTI's actions constituted an unfair labor practice, the ALJ noted that”
    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.