Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
303 U.S. 323 · 1938
Citation profile
151 federal appellate · 39 district · 112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 500 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk (1962), Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson (1962)
151 federal appellate · 39 district · 112 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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
reviewedLauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Truax v. Corrigan · Fleischmann Const Co v. United States · Takao Ozawa 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 500 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A case shall be held to involve or to grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation; or have direct or indirect interests therein; or who are employees of the same employer; or who are members of the same or an affiliated organization of employers or employees; whether such dispute is (1) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees; (2) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employers or associations of employers; or (3) between one or more employees or associations of employees and one or more employees or associations of employees; or when the case involves any conflicting or competing interests in a ‘labor dispute’ (as hereinafter defined) of ‘persons participating or interested’ therein (as hereinafter defined). * * * “(c) The term ‘labor dispute’ includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There can be no question of the power of Congress thus to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Michael Patrick Gavin, in His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Ed Clark, in His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Terry Branstad Charles Palmer Walter Kautzky Herb Maschner John Emmett Larry Moline Charles Naugling Steven Korb Mike Foehring John Fullenkamp Eldon Degrange Fred Cole Ron Meyers Charles Free Randy Martin, United States of America, Intervenor Michael Patrick Gavin, in His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Ed Clark, in His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Terry Branstad Charles Palmer Walter Kautzky Herb Maschner John Emmett Larry Moline Charles Naugling Steven Korb Mike Foehring John Fullenkamp Eldon Degrange Fred Cole Ron Meyers Charles Free Randy Martin, United States of America, Intervenor · Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service““§ 104. Enumeration of specific acts not subject to restraining orders or injunctions “No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or grow-out out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts: “(a) Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment; “(b) Becoming or remaining a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title; * * * * * “(e) Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence; “(f) Assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute; * * * ::: * “(h) Agreeing with other persons to do or not to do any of the acts heretofore specified; and “(i) Advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts heretofore specified, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title.” “§ 105. Doing in concert of certain acts as constituting unlawful combination of conspiracy subjecting person to injunctive remedies “No court of the Unit”
4 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.