NLRB v. Fain-Blatt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

473 federal appellate · 36 district · 86 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 868 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Examining the Act in the light of its purpose and of the circumstances in which it may be applied, we can perceive no basis for inferring any intention of Congress to make the operation of the Act depend on any particular volume of commerce affected more than that to which the courts would apply the maxim de minimis.””

   16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kingsbury Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Battaglia v. United States

2. ““(6) The term ‘commerce’ means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or tire District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory of the District of Columbia or any foreign country. “(7) The term ‘affecting commerce’ means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Newell v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 795 · Hehl v. CHIPPEWA, ETC., DISTRICT COUNCIL

3. ““It has been settled by repeated decisions of this Court that an employer may be subject to the National Labor Relations Act although not himself engaged in commerce. The end sought in the enactment of the statute was the prevention of the disturbance to interstate commerce consequent upon strikes and labor disputes induced or likely to be induced because of unfair labor practices named in the Act. That those consequences may ensue from strikes of the employees of manufacturers who are not engaged in interstate commerce where the cessation of manufacture necessarily results in the cessation of the movement of the manufactured product in interstate commerce, has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court. * * * Long before the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act it had been many times held by this Court that the power of Congress extends to the protection of interstate commerce from interference or injury due to activities which are wholly intrastate.” And “In this, as in every other case, the test of the Board’s jurisdiction is not the volume of the interstate commerce which may be affected, but the existence of a relationship of the employer and his employees to the commerce such that, to paraphrase § 10(a) in the light of constitutional limitations, unfair labor practices have led or tended to lead ‘to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce’.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Labor Relations Board v. El Dorado Water Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Drywall