National Labor Relations Board v. Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' Dist. Council’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.2d 149 · 1954
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Local 11, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America (1957), National Labor Relations Board v. Phaostron Instrument & Electronic Co. (1965)
25 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1116 (§ 34 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1 · 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Howell Chevrolet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Capital Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Rabouin v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Howell Chevrolet Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local 1
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The prohibited object of the boycott is stated by the statute to be `forcing * * * any employer or other person to cease using * * * the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer * * *.' In fact, if the object is sought, not because of any dispute, but merely because the union dislikes the other producer for any reason, or for no reason, the conduct would appear even more reprehensible. * * * The only dispute between the Union and the Company was over the latter's use of unfair shingles, and had no bearing on wages, working conditions, etc. In such a case, a strike called by the Union can have no other purpose than to compel the Company to cease using what the Union considers unfair shingles. 63 "Furthermore, the legislative history of the Act [ infra ] clearly shows that Congress intended to proscribe exactly the type of union action involved here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is * * * forcing or requiring any employer * * * to cease using * * * the products of any other * * manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Furthermore, the legislative history of the Act [ infra ] clearly shows that Congress intended to proscribe exactly the type of union action involved here.”
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.