Vane v. Nocella’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 24 state decisions

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

1. “"The principles of labor preemption, which derive from .. . Garmon ... are well established. In the NLRA, Congress established a ‘comprehensive amalgam of substantive law and regulatory arrangements ... to govern labor-management relations affecting interstate commerce.' A critical element of that amalgam is the NLRB's primary jurisdiction in interpreting and enforcing federal labor law. Labor preemption serves to ensure that state law does not frustrate either the substantive policies established by the NLRA or the regulatory mechanisms through which those policies are implemented. '[T]he broad powers conferred by Congress upon the National Labor Relations Board to interpret and to enforce’ the federal labor laws ‘necessarily imply that potentially conflicting "rules of law, of remedy, and of administration” cannot be permitted to operate.’ ' "[C]entralized administration of specially designed procedures [is] necessary to obtain uniform application of [the NLRA's] substantive rules and to avoid [the] diversities and conflicts likely to result from a variety of local procedures and attitudes toward labor controversies.” ’ ” [Citations Omitted.] [Emphasis added.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Law v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL NO. 37 · United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

2. “First, we determine whether the conduct that the state seeks to regulate or to make the basis of liability is actually or arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA.... [I]f the conduct at issue is arguably prohibited or protected[,] otherwise applicable state law and procedures are ordinarily preempted. When, however, the conduct at issue is only a peripheral concern of the Act or touches on interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, it could not be inferred that Congress intended to deprive the state of the power to act, we refuse to invalidate state regulation or sanction of the conduct. The question of whether regulation should be allowed because of the deeply-rooted nature of the local interest involves a sensitive balancing of any harm to the regulatory scheme established by Congress, either in terms of negating the [NLRBJ’s exclusive jurisdiction or in terms of conflicting substantive rules, and the importance of the asserted cause of action to the state as a protection to its citizens.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

3. “The enactment of the NLRA in 1935 marked a fundamental change in this Nation’s labor policies. Congress expressly recognized that collective organization of segments of the labor force into bargaining units capable of exercising economic power comparable to that possessed by employers could produce benefits for the. entire economy. Congress determined that those benefits would eventually outweigh the occasional costs of industrial strife associated with the organization of unions and the negotiation and enforcement of collective bargaining agreements.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.