American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council’s Empirical Analysis
257 U.S. 184 · 1921
Citation profile
172 federal appellate · 52 district · 296 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 811 later decisions (108 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Lindh v. Murphy (1997)
172 federal appellate · 52 district · 296 state decisions — followed in 39 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedTri-City Central Trades Council v. American Steel Foundries (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Swift Company v. United States · Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering · Burgess v. Seligman
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 811 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Labor unions] were organized out of the necessity of the situation. A single employee was helpless in dealing with an employer. ■ He was dependent ordinarily on his daily wage for the maintenance of himself and family. If the employer refused to pay him the- wages that he thought fair, he was nevertheless unable to leave the employ and to resist arbitrary and unfair treatment. Union was essential to give laborers an opportunity to deal in equality with their employer.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'relief by injunction operates in futuro.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“How far may men go in persuasion and communication and still not violate the right of those whom they would influence? In going to and from work, men have a right to as free a passage without obstruction as the streets afford, consistent with the right of others to enjoy the same privilege. We are a social people and the accosting by one of another in an inoffensive way and an offer by one to communicate and discuss information with a view to influencing the other's action are not regarded as aggression or a violation of that other's rights. If, however, the offer is declined, as it may rightfully be, then persistence, importunity, following and dogging become unjustifiable annoyance and obstruction which is likely soon to savor of intimidation. From all of this the person sought to be influenced has a right to be free and his employer has a right to have him free.”
4 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.