Local 140 Security Fund v. Hack’s Empirical Analysis
242 F.2d 375 · 1957
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1984
3 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 Nathanson v. National Labor Relations Board · Union Bridge Company v. United States · Sampsell v. Imperial Paper & Color Corp. · Shropshire, Woodliff & Co. v. Bush · In Re Otto
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The language of the statute granting priority to wages cannot be stretched so as to embrace this type of claim. If every type of payment made by an employer to a union welfare fund is to be given priority as a claim for ‘wages’ under Section 64, sub. a(2) of the Bankruptcy Act, that should be done through the legislative action of the Congress, and not by any judicial mislabeling of such payments as ‘wages.’ ” 242 F.2d at page 378 .”
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.