Mattis v. Massman’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.3d 902 · 2004
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland (2014), Klepsky v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007)
6 federal appellate · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Long v. Bando Manufacturing of America, Inc.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, courts must determine whether resolving the state-law claim would require interpretation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. If so, the claim is preempted. Second, courts must ascertain whether the rights claimed by the plaintiff were created by the collective bargaining agreement, or instead by state law. If the rights were created by the collective bargaining agreement, the claim is preempted. In short, if a state-law claim fails either of these two requirements, it is preempted by § 301.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Suits for violations of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce ... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.