National Labor Relations Board v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
502 federal appellate · 27 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 813 later decisions (80 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably United Mine Workers v. Pennington (1965), United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (1965)
502 federal appellate · 27 district · 30 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
reviewedTruck Drivers Local Union No. 449 v. National Labor Relations Board (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. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 173 (§ 203 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 176 (§ 206 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 178 (§ 208 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Republic Aviation Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Babcock & Wilcox 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 813 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ultimate problem is the balancing of the conflicting legitimate interests. The function of striking that balance to effectuate national labor policy is often a difficult and delicate responsibility, which the Congress committed primarily to the National Labor Relations Board, subject to limited judicial review.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was a vital factor in the effectuation of the national policy of promoting labor peace through strengthened collective bargaining.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although, as the Court of Appeals correctly noted, there is no express provision in the law either prohibiting or authorizing the lockout, the Act does not make the lockout unlawful per se. Legislative history of the Wagner Act, 49 Stat. 449 , indicates that there was no intent to prohibit strikes or lockouts as such. The unqualified use of the term ‘lock-out’ in several sections of the Taft-Hartley Act is statutory recognition that there are circumstances in which employers may lawfully resort to the lockout as an economic weapon. This conclusion is supported by the legislative history of the Act. “We are not concerned here with the cases in which the lockout has been held unlawful because designed to frustrate organizational efforts, to destroy or undermine bargaining representation, or to evade the duty to bargain. Nor are we called upon to define the limits of the legitimate use of the lockout. The narrow question to be decided is whether a temporary lockout may lawfully be used as a defense to a union strike tactic which threatens the destruction of the employers’ interest in bargaining on a group basis.” (353 U.S. pp. 92-93, 77 S.Ct. 645 -646)”
4 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.