Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 284 F.2d 162 - Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers, Local 107 v. Cohen

Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers, Local 107 v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis

284 F.2d 162 · 1960

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
3
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably United States v. Silverman (1970), Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (1963)

55 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

370196019701980199020002010decided

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 182 F. Supp. 608 - Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107 v. Cohen

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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““When any officer, agent, shop steward, or representative of any labor organization is' alleged to have violated the duties declared in subsection (a) of this scetion and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization, such member may sue such officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States or in any State court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor organization. No such proceeding shall be brought except upon leave of the court obtained upon verified application and for good causo shown, which application may be made ox parte. The trial judge may allot a reasonable part of the recovery in any action under this subsection to pay the fees of counsel prosecuting the suit at the instance of the member of the labor organization and to compensate such member for any expenses necessarily paid or incurred by him in connection with the litigation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The statutory basis for the assertion of these claims is alleged to be Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, otherwise known as the Landrum-Griffin Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 412. This section provides redress for violations of Section 101 of the Act, commonly known as the `Bill of Rights.' 29 U.S.C.A. § 411. The defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs were expelled from the Union before the effective date of the Act, which Act, the Union asserts, has no retrospective application. 9”
    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.