La Crosse Telephone Corporation v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local B953 Af of L’s Empirical Analysis
336 U.S. 18 · 1949
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 20 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1984 · most notably Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. (1957), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
42 federal appellate · 20 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 15 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.
Relationships
Relies on Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board · Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations Board
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A certification by a state board under a different or conflicting theory of representation may therefore be as readily disruptive of the practice under the federal act as if the orders of the two boards made a head-on collision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * If the two boards attempt to exercise a concurrent jurisdiction to decide the appropriate unit of representation, action by one necessarily denies the discretion of the other. The second to act either must follow the first, which would make its action useless and vain, or depart from it, which would produce a mischievous conflict. The State argues for a rule that would enable it to act until the federal board had acted in the same case. But we do not think that a case by case test of federal supremacy is permissible here. The federal board has jurisdiction of the industry in which these particular employers are engaged and has asserted control of their labor relations in general. It asserts, and rightfully so, * * * its power to decide whether these foremen may constitute themselves a bargaining unit. We do not believe this leaves room for the operation of the state authority asserted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * This employer is concededly engaged in interstate commerce; and the industry is one over which the National Board has consistently exercised jurisdiction. The Wisconsin Act provides -that a majority of employees in a single craft, division, department or plant of an-employer may elect to constitute that group a sep arate bargaining unit. § 111.02(6). The federal act leaves that matter to the discretion of the board. When under those circumstances the state board puts its imprimatur on a particular group as the collective bargaining agent of employees, it freezes into a pattern that which the federal act has left fluid.””
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.