National Labor Relations Board v. Threads, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
308 F.2d 1 · 1962
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently September 1997 · most notably Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. National Labor Relations Board (1966), Surprenant Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1965)
74 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufacturing Co. · National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence without supporting allegations cannot serve as the basis of a determination of an unfair labor practice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We conclude, therefore, that the Administrative Procedure Act and the Taft-Hartley Act direct that courts must now assume more responsibility for the reasonableness and fairness of Labor Board decisions than some courts have shown in the past. Reviewing courts must be influenced by a feeling that they are not to abdicate the conventional judicial function. Congress has imposed on them responsibility for assuring that the Board keeps within reasonable grounds. That responsibility is not less real because it is limited to enforcing the requirement that evidence appear substantial when viewed, on the record as a whole, by courts invested with the authority and enjoying the prestige of the Courts of Appeals. The Board's findings are entitled to respect; but they must nonetheless be set aside when the record before a Court of Appeals clearly precludes the Board's decision from being justified by a fair estimate of the worth of the testimony of witnesses or its informed judgment on matters within its special competence or both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * such right of a discriminatorily discharged employee to reinstatement and back pay is not a private right subject, like an ordinary debt, to private adjustment, but a remedy that is provided in the public interest in order to enforce a public right. * * * ””
1 later decision 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.