Almacs, Inc. v. Hackett’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2003
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 29 U.S.C. § 104 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 113 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 49 (Wagner-Peyser Act)
Relies on St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Swift & Co. v. Wickham · Ex parte Bransford
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Rhode Island unemployment compensation statute is part of a broad state-federal cooperative effort to protect citizens against economic vicissitudes. It was enacted at a time when there was both strong national and local feeling for the redress of certain economic evils which could eventuate from the unregulated play of market forces. Its operation has been consistent and continuing from 1936 to the present. That the federal government has shared in this operation is apparent from a reading of state and federal statutory law. § 28-44-1 et seq., G.L.R.I.1956, as amended, 26 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3309 , 29 U.S.C. §§ 49 -49K. In particular the statute’s statement of purpose, § 28-42-2 G.L. R.I.1956, as amended, makes clear the general welfare nature of the statute. It must, therefore, be concluded that it was neither the intent nor the primary purpose of the statute as a whole to impinge upon federally established collective bargaining rights.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the instant case the imposition upon collective bargaining power of the grant or denial of state benefits is speculative and limited. On the other hand, the concern of the state for the well-being of its unemployed and ultimately for the health of the local community is a most important interest ‘deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility.’ ””
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.