Jensen v. Garvison’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Arroyo v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Rockaway News Supply Co. · United States v. Ryan · Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry · Pinataro v. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“such being by finding, I am compelled to conclude that the payments made by the employers to this trust fund are not `for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents * * *' [as required by Section 302(c) (5)] for the reason that such persons are no longer employees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garvison v. Jensen“the benefits presently paid to the retirees and their wives are provided for by extra assessments now being paid by the employers and not out of surplus contributions which accumulated during the time the former employees were actively employed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garvison v. Jensen
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.