Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

114 federal appellate · 40 district · 486 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 824 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “By the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress did not exhaust the full sweep of legislative power over industrial relations given by the Commerce Clause. Congress formulated a code whereby it outlawed some aspects of labor activities and left others free for the operation of economic forces. As to both categories, the areas that have been pre-empted by federal authority and thereby withdrawn from state power are not susceptible of delimitation by fixed metes and bounds. Obvious conflict, actual or potential, leads to easy judicial exclusion of state action. Such was the situation in Garner v. Teamsters Union [ 346 U.S. 485 , 74 S.Ct. 161, 98 L.Ed. 228], supra. But as the opinion in that case recalled, the Labor Management Relations Act `leaves much to the states, though Congress has refrained from telling us how much.' 346 U.S., at page 488, 74 S.Ct., at page 164. This penumbral area can be rendered progressively clear only by the course of litigation. * *”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 48 Wash. 2d 519 - Stoddard-Wendle Motor Co. v. Automotive MacHinists Lodge 942 · Buckman v. United Mine Workers of America

2. “"In determining, therefore, whether an activity is protected or prohibited under Sections 157 and 158 of the Act ( 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 157 , 158) a state court need only to determine that the facts reasonably bring the controversy within the sections and if so should decline jurisdiction. In Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., supra [ 348 U.S. 468 , 75 S.Ct. 480 , 99 L.Ed. 546 ], the court said: `... But where the moving party itself alleges unfair labor practices, where the facts reasonably bring the controversy within the sections prohibiting these practices, and where the conduct, if not prohibited by the federal Act, may be reasonably deemed to come within the protection afforded by that Act, the state court must decline jurisdiction in deference to the tribunal which Congress has selected for determining such issues in the first instance.' (p. 481.)"”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kaw Paving Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers · Local Lodge No. 774 & District Lodge No. 70 of the International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

3. ““Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a) (3) of this title.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. De Veau v. Braisted · Minor v. Building and Construction Trades Council