National Labor Relations Board v. McGahey’s Empirical Analysis
233 F.2d 406 · 1956
Citation profile
269 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 302 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufacturing Co. (1962), Hendrix Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1963)
269 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 161 (§ 11 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Greenberg v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Coats & Clark, Inc. · National Labor Relations Board v. Houston Chronicle Pub. Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills 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 302 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[m]anagement can discharge for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all. It has, as the master of its own business affairs, complete freedom with but one specific definite qualification: it may not discharge when the real motivating purpose is to do that which Section 8(a) (3) forbids.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a)n unlawful purpose is not lightly to be inferred. In the choice between lawful and unlawful motives, the record taken as a whole must present a substantial basis of believable evidence pointing toward the unlawful one.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But the employer does not bear this duty. It is, rather on the General Counsel to establish by acceptable substantial evidence on the whole record that discharge came from the forbidden motives of interference in employee statutory rights. The burden long imposed by this Court, N. L. R. B. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir., 222 F.2d 341 ; N. L. R. B. v. Brady Aviation Corp., 5 Cir., 224 F.2d 23 ; N. L. R. B. v. Alco Feed Mills, 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 419 ; N. L. R. B. v. Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills Co., 5 Cir., 122 F.2d 433 ; N. L. R. B. v. Ray Smith Transport Co., 5 Cir., 193 F.2d 142 , has added sanction by express terms of the Act.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions 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.