San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1,574 federal appellate · 605 district · 1,890 state decisions

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 6,369 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted.”

   472 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leonor Alberti Decanas and Miguel Canas,s, v. Anthony G. Bica and Juan Silva. · Lodge 76, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission

2. “"The Court's opinion in this case cuts deeply into the ability of States to furnish an effective remedy under their own laws for the redress of past nonviolent tortious conduct which is not federally protected, but which may be deemed to be, or is, federally prohibited. Henceforth the States must withhold access to their courts until the National Labor Relations Board has determined that such unprotected conduct is not an unfair labor practice, a course which, because of unavoidable Board delays, may render state redress ineffective. And in instances in which the Board declines to exercise its jurisdiction, the States are entirely deprived of power to afford any relief. Moreover, since the reparation powers of the Board, as we observed in Russell, are narrowly circumscribed, those injured by nonviolent conduct will often go remediless even when the Board does accept jurisdiction." San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, etc. v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 , 79 S.Ct. 773 , 3 L.Ed.2d 775 , at 787 and 788.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Lodge 76, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission · Buckman v. United Mine Workers of America

3. “), to determine which of its employees should be laid off. Prior to the adoption of the PECP, layoffs at NASSCO had been determined on a seniority basis. In their suits, Plaintiffs alleged that they are disabled persons and that the PECP has been used by NASSCO to purposefully layoff disabled workers in violation of the ADA and FEHA. 8 NASSCO moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) or in the alternative for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 on the basis that Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sweeney v. Westvaco Co. · Smith v. National Steel & Shipbuilding Co.