International Union of United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Cio v. O'Brien’s Empirical Analysis
339 U.S. 454 · 1950
Citation profile
107 federal appellate · 24 district · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 350 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1959), National Labor Relations Board v. Erie Resistor Corp. (1963)
107 federal appellate · 24 district · 122 state decisions — followed in 25 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 National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. · Allen-Bradley Local No 1111 United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board · Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations Board · Hill v. State of Florida Watson · International Union Uaw Af of Local 232 v. Wisconsin Employment 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 350 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“permit[] concurrent state regulation of peaceful strikes for higher wages. Congress occupied this field and closed it to state regulation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Such state legislation must yield as conflicting with the exercise of federally protected labor rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * The federal Act * * * permits strikes at a different and usually earlier time than the Michigan law; and it does not require majority authorization for any strike. This requirement of approval by a majority of the employees was contained in the Bill which passed the House of Representatives; but the Act as finally adopted deliberately refrains from imposing the prerequisite of majority approval in each of its references to strike votes. §§ 203(c), 209(b)-210.””
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.