Self v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. ““81-203. Certain Contracts prohibited. — No person, group of persons, firm, corporation, association, or labor organization shall enter into any contract to exclude from employment (1) persons who are members of, or affiliated with, a labor union; (2) persons who are not members of, or who fail or refuse to join or affiliate with, a labor union; and (3) persons who, having joined a labor union, have resigned their membership therein or have been discharged, expelled, or excluded therefrom.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaiser v. Price-Fewell, Inc. · 174 F. Supp. 241 - Lewis v. Hixson

2. “"It is equally well settled that even peaceful picketing for an unlawful objective is not protected by the constitutional guarantee of the right of free speech. We recognized this in the Asimos case, [Local No. 802 v. Asimos, 216 Ark. 694 , 227 S.W.2d 154 ], supra, where we said 216 Ark. at page 702 , 227 S.W.2d at page 158 : `On the authority of these Federal cases the injunction in the case at bar could be sustained in some form, if the appellees had shown that the Union was picketing the Jefferson Coffee Shop in an effort to compel the execution of a "closedshop" contract.' See also Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co, 336 U.S. 490 , 69" S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834 ; Building Service Employees International Union, Local 262 v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532 , 70 S.Ct. 784 [ 94 L.Ed. 1045 ]; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, C. W. & H. Union, Local 309 v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470 , 70 S.Ct. 773 [ 94 L.Ed. 995 ]; Amalgamated Meat Cutters [etc.] v. Green, 119 Colo. 92 , 200 P.2d 924 ; Construction and General Labor Union v. Stephenson [ 148 Tex. 434 ] 225 S.W.2d 958 ; Local Union No. 519 v. Robertson, Fla, 44 So.2d 899 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mitcham v. Ark-La. Construction Co.

3. ““It was the object of the defendants, in submitting this contract, to compel the plaintiff to operate a closed shop business. He could not afford to sign such a contract, under the laws of the State of Arkansas, because if he permitted union men to work for him he would have to violate the law and dismiss employees because they were not members of the union. It is an ingenious scheme, but it did not work.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaiser v. Price-Fewell, Inc.