National Labor Relations Board v. Untied Clay Mines Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
219 F.2d 120 · 1955
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2003 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Superior Fireproof Door & Sash Co. (1961), National Labor Relations Board v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, and Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation (1956)
35 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance · Sicurella v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Jacobs Mfg. Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Mfg. Co.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. National Labor Relations Board v. Standard Roofing Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, and Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation““We find nothing in the Act which requires * * * [the abandonment of] a settled position on .a certain issue because of either the quantity or quality of concessions * * *. It is not for * * * the Court to determine what in their opinion the respondent should have agreed to, and, in effect, make the contract for the parties. [The Board’s order] would, as a practical matter, force the respondent to make a concession * • * *. While the Act compels negotiations, which usually result in reaching an agreement, it contains no authority to force an agreement where the parties have reached an impasse. [Citing cases.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“conduct clearly showing an intent not to enter into a contract of any nature.”
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.