Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 N.C. 306 - In Re Steelman

In Re Steelman’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
18
states following
January 2009
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably Ross Realty Co. v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (1979), Bunny's Waffle Shop, Inc. v. California Employment Commission (1944)

3 federal appellate · 75 state decisions — followed in 18 states

1901941195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. ““For any week in which it is found by the commissioner that his total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or_ was last employed, provided that this subsection shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that: “(1) He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work; ...” (Subsection d.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Perhaps it is fair to say, however, that the effect of the present determination is to declare the employer’s letter of 29 April and his testimony that the claimants’ positions Avere still open, if they cared to apply for them, would not perforce disqualify the claimants or render them ineligible for benefits from and after 13 May 1910, the date on which the stoppage of work ceased. The position finds support in Sec. 5(c) (2) of the Act which provides: ‘Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, no work shall be deemed suitable and benefits shall not be denied under this Act to any otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new work under any of the following conditions: (a) If the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"The statute does not undertake to consider which party is responsible for the stoppage, the material element being is there a stoppage of work caused by a labor dispute? * * * "While no Illinois decision has been called to our attention, the almost unanimous holdings of jurisdictions where the question has arisen have been that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the demands, or the merits of the dispute, have no place in the determination of the question whether a labor dispute exists."”
    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.