284 F. Supp. 596 - Raymond v. Hoffmann’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 1989 · most notably Alvares v. Erickson (1975), Nedd v. United Mine Workers (1977)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Humphrey v. Moore · Antonio Copra v. Jose A. Suro · Frank Falsetti v. Local Union No. 2026 · Carroll v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents). . . . 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c)(5) (emphasis added).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendants have suggested that § 302(c)(5) exists to allow multi-employer pension plans to use so-called ‘pooled funds’. A pooled fund is simply one large fund contributed to by a number of employers, instead of many smaller funds each contributed to by only one employer. For simplicity of administration and reduction of overall expense, Congress, it seems, allowed employers, by that portion of 302(c)(5) in parentheses, to use pooled funds. But surely it is clear that employers contributing to , any pension fund are doing so only for the benefit of their own employees. The fact that the fund benefits as a whole by the commingling of all employer contributions does not overcome the presumption that employers are acting, to an overwhelming extent, in the interests of only their own respective employees when contributing to pooled pension funds. The defendants’ argument goes astray when it assumes that since Congress allowed pooled funds, it also allowed employer contributions to be used to the exclusion of their own employees. Such an assumption on the part of the defendants is inconsistent with what appears to be the purpose of § 302.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district courts of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, ... to restrain violations of this section . . .. 29 U.S.C. § 186 (e).”
2 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.