National Labor Relations Board v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

155 federal appellate · 12 district · 10 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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * legislation when not expressed in technical terms is addressed to the common run of men and is therefore to be understood according to the sense of the thing, as the ordinary man has a right to rely on ordinary words addressed to him. [Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc., 322 U.S. 607 , 618, 64 S.Ct. 1215 , 1221, 88 L.Ed. 1488 (1944)].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Akins v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Sterling Precision Corp.

2. “The Board distinguishes Highland Park, by suggesting that here the `employer seeks to question only the fact of compliance, as distinguished from the necessity of compliance.' The genesis of this distinction comes from the following in Highland Park: `If there were dispute as to whether the C.I.O. had filed the required affidavits or whether documents filed met the statutory requirements and the Board had resolved that question in favor of the labor organizations, a different question would be presented.' 341 U.S. 322 , 325, 71 S.Ct. 758, 760. The Board misconceives the significance of the passage. Both Highland Park and this case involve the scope of § 9(h), the meaning to be derived from its language; neither case involves an inquiry into disputed facts, the situation referred to in Highland Park. Acceptance of a differentiation between these cases upon any such theory as that suggested by the Board would make of law too thin a dialectic enterprise. 19 "But if the Board's distinction is overly subtle, its reason for attempting a distinction has force, namely, a concern with `the need to expedite the hearing of cases and the resolution of issues on their merits. * * *' 108 N. L. R. B. 490, 491. Much may be said for the claim that an employer should not be permitted to disrupt or delay complaint or representation cases by raising questions respecting § 9(h). But after Highland Park the argument comes too late.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Labor Relations Board v. Puerto Rico Food Products Corp.

3. ““But if the word be deemed to have a peculiar connotation for those intimate with trade-union affairs, it is incumbent upon us to give the word its technical meaning, Boston Sand Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48 , [ 49 S.Ct. 52 , 73 L.Ed. 170, 177 ,] for § 9(h) [National Labor Relations Act] is an integral part of a statute whose sponsors were familiar with labor organizations and labor problems and which was doubtless drawn by specialists in labor relations.” 350 U.S. 264, 269 , 76 S.Ct. 383, 386 , 100 L.Ed. 285 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. St. Luke's Hospital Ass'n of Cleveland v. United States