Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 U.S. 552 - New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.

New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.’s Empirical Analysis

303 U.S. 552 · 1938

Citation profile

446
cited by 446 later decisions
51
cited 51 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

144 federal appellate · 52 district · 84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 446 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (1941), National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. (1944)

144 federal appellate · 52 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 18 states

16901938194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedNew Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Palko v. State of Connecticut · Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering · American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council · Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union · Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co.

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

  1. “Congress abolished, for purposes of labor immunity, the distinction between primary activity between the immediate disputants and secondary activity in which the employer disputants and the members of the union do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““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 * * * whether such dispute is (a) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employes or associations of employes, (b) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employers or associations of employers, or (c) between one or more employes or associations of employes and one or more employes or associations of employes, or when the case involves any conflicting or competing interests in a labor dispute.” (Italics ours)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It was intended that peaceful and orderly dissemination of information by those defined as persons interested in a labor dispute concerning ‘terms and conditions of employment’ in an industry or a plant or a place of business should be lawful; that, short of fraud, breach of peace, violence, or conduct otherwise unlawful, those having a direct or indirect interest in such terms and conditions of employment should be at liberty to advertise and disseminate facts and information with respect to terms and conditions of employment, and peacefully to persuade others to concur in their views respecting an employer’s practices.””
    5 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.