National Labor Relations Board v. District 50, United Mine Workers’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
153 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 209 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. National Labor Relations Board (1961), Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. National Labor Relations Board (1961)
153 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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
reviewedDistrict 50, United Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc. · Brooks v. National Labor Relations Board · Texas Co v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks · National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt 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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Board’s discretionary authority to fashion remedies to purge unfair labor practices necessarily has a broad reach. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584 , 600 [ 61 S.Ct. 358 , 366, 85 L.Ed. 368 ], But the power is not limitless; it is contained by the requirement that the remedy shall be “appropriate,” Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U.S. 318 [ 60 S.Ct. 918 , 84 L.Ed. 1226 ], and shall “be adapted to the situation which calls for redress,” Labor Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 , 348 [ 58 S.Ct. 904 , 912, 82 L.Ed. 1381 ]. The Board may not apply “a remedy it has worked out on the basis of its experience, without regard to circumstances which may make its application to a particular situation oppressive and therefore not calculated to effectuate a policy of the Act.” Labor Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344 , 349 [ 73 S.Ct. 287 , 290, 97 L.Ed. 377 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(n)o objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Board's discretionary authority to fashion remedies to purge unfair labor practices necessarily has a broad reach. But the power is not limitless; it is contained by the requirement that the remedy shall be `appropriate,' and shall `be adapted to the situation which calls for redress.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. NLRB v. USPS
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.