Lumber & Sawmill Workers v. Millis’s Empirical Analysis
325 U.S. 697 · 1945
Citation profile
163 federal appellate · 39 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 340 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. (1982), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
163 federal appellate · 39 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 13 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
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · Phillips v. Commissioner · Morgan v. United States · Bowles v. Willingham
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 340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Obviously great latitude concerning procedural details is contemplated. Requirements of formality and rigidity are altogether lacking. The notice must be 'due,' the hearing 'appropriate.' These requirements are related to the character of the proceeding of which the hearing is only a part. That proceeding is not technical. It is an 'investigation,' essentially informal, not adversary. The investigation is not required to take any particular form or confined to the hearing.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) (1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board — "(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in subsection (a) of this section, or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in subsection (a) of this section; or "(B) by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in subsection (a) of this section; the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A direction of election is but an intermediate step in the investigation, with certification as the final and effective action. . . . Nothing in §9 (c) requires the Board to utilize the results of an election or forbids it to disregard them and utilize other suitable methods.””
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.