Baker v. IBP, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
357 F.3d 685 · 2004
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Randolph v. IMBS, Inc. (2004), Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. (2006)
16 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 15 U.S.C. § 17 (§ 6 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · United States v. Turkette
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ajpplied to claims in federal court, and arising under federal law, Garmon has nothing to do with either preemption or subject matter jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“RICO provides treble damages for direct injuries but not remote ones.... Although the Ninth Circuit concluded in Mendoza that the injury workers suffer when wages are depressed by competition from aliens is similar to the kind of injuries redressed under the antitrust laws, things may not be so straightforward. An increased supply of labor logically affects, not just the wages at [defendants’ Russellville] plant, but wages throughout the region (if not the country). Workers can change employers (leaving [Pilgrim’s Pride] for higher pay elsewhere), and this process should cause equilibration throughout the labor market. Yet plaintiffs’ theory is not that too many aliens depress wages around [Russellville]; it is that [Pilgrim’s Pride] pays lower wages than some competitors, and that effect would be very hard to attribute to particular violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1824 (a)(3)(A).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]ederal statutes do not 'preempt' other federal statutes[.]”
1 later decision 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.