Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 F.2d 120 - National Labor Relations Board v. Untied Clay Mines Corp.

National Labor Relations Board v. Untied Clay Mines Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

219 F.2d 120 · 1955

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
December 2003
most recently cited

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 ·

120195519601970198019902000decided

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.

  1. “compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““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
  3. “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.