Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
313 U.S. 146 · 1941
Citation profile
890 federal appellate · 12 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,139 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. (1944), Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. (1971)
890 federal appellate · 12 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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
reviewedPittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Hansberry v. Lee · Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board
Cited together with Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board · May Department Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, 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 1,139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom of exercising the rights guaranteed by this subchapter, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof * * *»”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with St. Louis Joint Council, United Retail & Department Store Employees of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of all its employees at its St. Louis store engaged in the busheling room, second floor, department 280, and in the busheling room, basement, department 281, including regular extra employees in these departments, but excluding the two foremen and all other employees of the respondent; “(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees who are referred to in paragraph 1 (a) in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Labor Act places upon the Board the responsibility of determining the appropriate group of employees for the bargaining unit. In accordance with this delegation of authority, the Board may decide that all employees of a single employer form the most suitable unit for the selection of collective bargaining representatives, or the Board may decide that the workers in any craft or plant or subdivision thereof are more appropriate.”
3 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.