Barbieri v. United Technologies Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
21 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he subject matter of § 301(a) is peculiarly one that calls for uniform law . . . Once the collective bargain [is] made, the possibility of conflicting substantive interpretation under competing legal systems would tend to stimulate and prolong disputes as to its CT Page 4257 interpretation. Indeed, the existence of possibly conflicting legal concepts might substantially impede the parties' willingness to agree to contract terms providing for final arbitration or judicial resolution of disputes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce . . . may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Not] every state-law suit asserting a right that relates in some way to a provision in the collective-bargaining agreement [however] necessarily is [preempted] by § 301. The full scope of the [preemptive] effect of federal labor-contract law remains to be fleshed out on a case-by-case basis.”
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.