National Labor Relations Board v. Truitt Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

725 federal appellate · 18 district · 64 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 1,019 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Each case must turn upon its particular facts. The inquiry must always be whether or not under the circumstances of the particular case the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith has been met.”

   47 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board · White v. National Labor Relations Board

2. “(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer — "(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title; * * * * * "(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159 (a) of this title.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Cap Santa Vue, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51 v. National Labor Relations Board

3. “the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder.” Section 158(a)(1) forbids an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” in § 157; the rights guaranteed in § 157 include the right of employees "to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” 2 . Other information requested by the union, including the sales and earnings of the Old Hickory plant, was found not relevant to the union’s statutory duties concerning the wage negotiations. 3 . This is not to say that the Board might not reasonably have limited its requirement of information production to fewer textile fibers plants nearest to Old Hickory in size and geographic location if it had believed that course to be warranted. 4 . The company maintains that endorsement of the Board’s approach in this case will render meaningless the Supreme Court’s statement in Truitt that a case like this “must turn upon its particular facts.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Haw. State Teachers Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ.