Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 358 F.2d 103 - Metal Products Workers Union v. Torrington Co.

Metal Products Workers Union v. Torrington Co.’s Empirical Analysis

358 F.2d 103 · 1966

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
7
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Piggly Wiggly Operators' Warehouse, Inc. v. Piggly Wiggly Operators' Warehouse Independent Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 1 (1980), Torrington Co. v. Metal Products Workers Union Local 1645 (1966)

21 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 state decisions

190196619701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston · Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. · Stoner v. California

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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'(W)hen public policy is sought to be interposed as a bar to enforcement of (or as a reason to vacate) an arbitration award, a court must evaluate its asserted content.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We find no ground for reversing the decision of the arbitrator. The parties voluntarily and by express agreement submitted to him the very issue which he had decided, the issue of arbitrability. The Union is unhappy with the award because the arbitrator failed to find in its favor. It wants an opportunity to present its case again to another tribunal. We can perceive no reason for giving it this second opportunity, since there is no basis for finding error either in the arbitrator’s conclusions or in the procedure by which he reached those conclusions.”
    2 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.