Kipbea Baking Co. v. Strauss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The facts set forth in the complaint, however, do describe secondary boycott activities and other acts which are expressly prohibited by Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. Apparently defendants admit that the acts charged would be such a violation since the character of these acts was the basis of their thesis that the NLRB had exclusive jurisdiction of this suit. The coordinate section of the Act expressly authorizing suits for the recovery of injuries sustained by such prohibited acts, is Section 303 of the Act. A Section 303 suit is not dependent upon a prior administrative determination by the Board that an unfair labor practice has been committed by either the employer or the union. See International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 1951, 342 U.S. 237 , 72 S.Ct. 235 , 96 L.Ed. 275 . Since the two actions are independent, it is apparently of no consequence that a decision reached by the Board in one case is inconsistent with the decision reached by the court in the other case.” (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 333 F. Supp. 385 - Strip Clean Floor Refinishing v. New York District Council No. 9 Brotherhood of Painters