James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc. And Robert Demario, an Individual, Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc. And Robert Demario, an Individual, Cross-Appellant v. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Cross-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis
260 F.2d 929 · 1958
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1986
12 federal appellate ·
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
Relationships
Relies on Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Porter v. Warner Holding Co. · Texas Co v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks · Citizens Bank & Trust Co. 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It shall be unlawful for any person to * * * discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Plaintiff submits that under the applicable decisions it is well established that the court in this case, upon a showing of the facts alleged in the complaint, in the exercise of its equity powers, is authorized to enjoin defendant from future violations of Section 15(a) (3) of the Act, to require defendant to reinstate the employees unlawfully discharged and to allow recovery of wages lost by reason of the discharge. Any relief granted short of that sought would fail to grant full redress to the plaintiff and to the employees wronged by the illegal conduct complained of.””
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.