No 17025’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 1984 · most notably Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Telephone Co. (1961), 52 Cal. 2d 568 - Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. Los Angeles Joint Board (1959)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776 · National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . the better-reasoned cases hold that even where the aggrieved incident or act constitutes both a contract violation and an unfair labor practice, particularly concerning a substantive contract right such as employment or pay, the federal district courts will not be deprived of jurisdiction to grant relief as to the breach of contract, the other aspect being left to the Board. . . . The distinguishing point is that, while an act may be both an arbitrable contract violation and an unfair labor practice, a ‘breach of contract is not an unfair labor practice’; the former is enforced by the courts, the latter by the Board; the former gives to private parties a remedy, the latter uses a private right to effectuate the declared policies of the Act; the former gives a certainty of decision, the latter leaves decision discretionary.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . We consider the general rule to be that a dispute between labor and management is arbitrable where the dispute is specifically contracted to be arbitrable or generally where the contract expresses a broad arbitration policy, i. e. a general arbitration clause; but controversies are not arbitrable where the controversy in question is specifically excluded, where because of a listing of many arbitrable incidences the instant controversy is impliedly excluded, and where the controversy or grievance concerns violation of a ‘no strike clause.' ” (P- 471.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Initially, the appellant earnestly contends that the question of arbi-trability should be determined by the arbitration board in this case, saying that the lower court should not have decided the issue of arbitrability in view of the contract provision that 'any grievance’ could be arbitrated. While there is much to say in favor of appellant’s argument, the courts have, with practical uniformity, held the question of arbitrability to be an issue for the courts — that is, the courts decide if the particular grievance is arbitrable under the terms of the collective bargaining contract. This is true even where the contract specifies that any controversy relating to the meaning or interpretation or application of the contract is arbitrable; Perhaps, if the contract expresses that the arbitrators will decide arbitrability, the courts would refrain from a decision.””
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.