United States v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
268 federal appellate · 25 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 497 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Amax Coal Co. (1981), Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp. (1960)
268 federal appellate · 25 district · 24 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Ryan (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 142 (§ 501 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 174 (§ 204 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 181 (§ 211 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Yates v. United States · United States v. Ryan · United States v. Ryan · 128 F. Supp. 128 - United States v. Ryan
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 497 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a criminal provision, malum prohibitum, which outlaws all payments, with stated exceptions, between employer and representative.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in using the term `representative' Congress intended that it include any person authorized by the employees to act for them in dealings with their employers.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of employers or any person who acts as a labor relations expert, adviser, or consultant to an employer or who acts in the interest of an employer to pay, lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value— (1) to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or (2) to any labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer who are employed in an industry affecting com-mercé; or (3) to any employee or group or committee of employees of such employer employed in an industry affecting commerce in excess of their normal compensation for the purpose of causing such employee or group or committee directly or indirectly to influence any other employees in the exercise of the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; or (4) to any officer or employee of a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce with intent to influence him in respect to any of his actions, decisions, or duties as a representative of employees or as such officer or employee of such labor organization. (b)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to request, demand, receive, or agree to receive or accept, any payment, loan, or delivery of any money or thing of value prohibited by subsection (a) of this sec”
5 later decisions 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.