295 F. Supp. 463 - Giordani v. Hoffmann’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 501 · 29 U.S.C. § 502
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman · Calagaz v. Calhoon · Blassie v. Kroger Co. · Bowers v. Ulpiano Casal, Inc.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * if a plaintiff charges that employers have made direct payments to representatives of their employees under the guise of making contributions to trust funds it is clear that a federal court has jurisdiction over his complaint pursuant to § 302."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“violations of basic structure, as determined by the Congress, not violations of fiduciary obligations or standards of prudence in the administration of the trust fund.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of employers or any person who acts as a labor relations expert, adviser, or consultant to an employer or who acts in the interest of an employer to pay, lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value-— (1) to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or (2) to any labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or (3) to any employee or group or committee of employees of such employer employed in an industry affecting commerce iu excess of their normal compensation for the purpose of causing such employee or group or committee directly or indirectly to influence any other employees in the exercise of the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; or (4) to any officer or employee of a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce with intent to influence him in respect to any of his actions, decisions, or duties as a representative of employees or as such officer or employee of such labor organization. (b) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to request, demand, receive, or accept, or agree to receive or accept, any payment, loan, or delivery of any money or other thing of value prohibited by subsect”
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.