National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

621 federal appellate · 6 district · 90 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 915 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... But reprehensible as was that conduct of the respondent, there is no ground for saying that it made respondent an outlaw or deprived it of its legal rights to the possession and protection of its property. The employees had the right to strike but they had no license to commit acts of violence or to seize their employer’s plant. We may put. on one side the contested questions as to the circumstances and extent of injury to the plant and its contents in the efforts of the men to resist eviction. The seizure and holding of the buildings was itself a wrong apart from any acts of sabotage. But in its legal aspect the ousting of the owner from lawful possession is not essentially different from an assault upon the officers of an employing company, or the seizure and conversion of its goods, or the despoiling of its property or other unlawful acts in order to force compliance with demands. To justify such conduct because of the existence of a labor dispute or of an unfair labor practice would be to put a premium on resort to force instead of legal remedies and to subvert the principles of law and order which lie at the foundations of society. * * * “We think that the true purpose of Congress is reasonably clear. Congress was intent upon the protection of the right of employees to self-organization and to the selection of representatives of their own choosing for collective bargaining without restraint or coercion. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. ”

   19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eastex, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

2. “`The important point is that respondent stood absolved by the conduct of those engaged in the”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Clearfield Cheese Co.

3. ““It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer— “(1) To interfei-e with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title. “(2) To dominate or interfere with- the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it * * *. “(3) By discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this chapter, or in * * * any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in this chapter as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section -159(a) of this title, in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made. * * * * “(5) To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159 (a) of this title.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Virginia Manufacturing Company Incorporated v. Virginia Manufacturing Company Incorporated · International Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board