National Labor Relations Board v. City Yellow Cab Co.’s Empirical Analysis
344 F.2d 575 · 1965
Citation profile
46 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 1998 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Security Guard Service, Inc. (1967), Hugh H. Wilson Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (1969)
46 federal appellate ·
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. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council · Ex Parte Barber · In re Disbarment of Gately · National Labor Relations Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp. · National Labor Relations Board v. Stowe Spinning Co.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The cabdrivers testified that they went on strike and engaged in picketing because they were in sympathy with the demand of the switchboard operators for recognition. The Act protects the rights of employees ‘to engage in * * * concerted activities for the purpose of * * * mutual aid or protection.’ 29 U.S.C. § 157 . N.L.R.B. v. Halsey W. Taylor Company, 342 F.2d 406 (C.A. 6, March 3, 1965). “As said by Judge Learned Hand in N.L.R.B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., 130 F.2d 503 , 505 (C.A. 2): “ ‘Certainly nothing elsewhere in the act limits the scope of the language to “activities” designed to benefit other “employees”; and its rationale forbids such a limitation. When all the other workmen in a shop make common cause with a fellow workman over his separate grievance, and go out on strike in his support, they engage in a “concerted activity” for “mutual aid or protection,” although the aggrieved workman is the only one of them: who has any immediate stake in the outcome. The rest know that by their action each one of them assures himself, in case his turn ever comes, of the support of the one whom they are all then helping; and the solidarity so established is “mutual aid” in the most literal sense, as nobody doubts.’ See also N.L.R.B. v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co., 180 F.2d 840 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Schwartz, 146 F.2d 773 (C.A. 5) “In NLRB v. Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Co-op, Inc., 285 F.2d 8 , 12 (C.A. 6), this court quoted with approval the followin”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As said by Judge Learned Hand in N.L.R.B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., 130 F.2d 503, 505 (C.A. 2): 26”
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.