Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

326 federal appellate · 15 district · 33 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 546 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The duties of a bargaining agent selected under the terms of the Act extend beyond the mere representation of the interests of its own group members. By its selection as bargaining representative, it has become the agent of all the employees, charged with the responsibility of representing their interests fairly and impartially. Otherwise, employees who are not members of a selected union at the time it is chosen by the majority would be left without adequate representation.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 636 F. Supp. 1174 - Gorski v. Local Union 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Williams v. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh

2. “[the Board] has consistently gone behind [settlement] agreements ... where subsequent events have demonstrated that efforts at adjustment have failed to accomplish their purpose, or where there has been a subsequent unfair labor practice. We think this rule adopted by the Board is appropriate to accomplish the Act's purpose with fairness to all concerned.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Labor Relations Board v. Arrow Specialties, Inc. · Gulf States Manufacturers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

3. “It is contended that the Board's finding as to company domination has no support in the evidence because the evidence as to company domination antedated the settlement and certification, and hence was improperly admitted. The argument is that the Board cannot go behind the settlement and certification. The petitioner does not argue that any language appearing in the Labor Relations Act denies this power to the Board, but relies upon general principles on which the judicial rule governing estoppel is based. * * With reference to the attempted settlement of disputes, as in the performance of other duties imposed upon it by the Act, the Board has power to fashion its procedure to achieve the Act's purpose to protect employees from unfair labor practices. We cannot, by incorporating the judicial concept of estoppel into its procedure, render the Board powerless to prevent an obvious frustration of the Act's purposes.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Communications Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Northern California District Council of Hod Carriers & Common Laborers of America