Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 311 U.S. 514 - H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

311 U.S. 514 · 1941

Citation profile

812
cited by 812 later decisions
40
cited 40 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

634 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 812 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. (1957), National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. (1944)

634 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 12 states

3250194119501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Co. · International Ass'n of Machinists; Tool & Die Makers Lodge No. 35 v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.

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

  1. “The question is not one of legal liability of the employer in damages or for penalties on principles of agency or respondeat superior, but only whether the Act condemns such activities as unfair labor practices so far as the employer may gain from them any advantage in the bargaining process of a kind which the Act proscribes. To that extent we hold that the employer is within the reach of the Board's order to prevent any repetition of such activities and to remove the consequences of them upon the employees' right of self-organization, quite as much as if he had directed them.”
    10 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.