National Labor Relations Board v. I. B. S. Mfg. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
210 F.2d 634 · 1954
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1987 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Cambria Clay Products Co. (1954), National Labor Relations Board v. Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc. (1954)
31 federal appellate · 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance · Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Andrews · United States v. Alpers
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Long before its opinion in the American National Insurance case (American National Ins. Co. v. N. L. R.B.), 5 Cir., 187 F.2d 307 , affirmed 343 U.S. 395 , 72 S.Ct. 824 , 96 L.Ed. 1027 , this Court had held without varying that the Board could not compel employers and employees to agree to particular provisions in a contract. It emphatically, therefore, rejects the view put out by the Board and apparently sustained by the court in Wilson & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 759 , that a refusal to agree to what, in the opinion of the board, reasonable and fair-minded men ought to be willing to do may be taken to be any indication of a lack of proper intent or of good faith in collective bargaining. It rejected this for the reason which it made plain in the American National Insurance case in this court and which the Supreme Court in that case, made even more plain. This reason is that the recognition of such a rule would put the board in the position of devising contracts for, and forcing their acceptance upon, employers and employees in accordance with what the board deemed reasonable and fair. “It is one thing to say that the employer must make a reasonable effort in some direction to compose his differences with the union, if Section 8(a)(5) is to be read as imposing any substantial obligation at all, N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 205 F.2d 131 , and it is entirely another to say that the board may determine what agreements employers ought to make a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an entirely new and different cause of action”
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.