Union Pacific Railroad v. Price’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
178 federal appellate · 52 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 469 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. (1985), International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Street (1961)
178 federal appellate · 52 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 45 U.S.C. § 153 (Railway Labor Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on Elgin Ry Co v. Burley · Leedom v. Kyne · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana Railroad · Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board
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 469 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute, except insofar as they shall contain a money award.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Plainly the statutory scheme as revised by the 1934 amendments was designed for effective and final decision of grievances which arise daily, principally as matters of the administration and application of the provisions of collective bargaining agreements.” (emphasis added)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“* * * To say that the discharged employee may litigate the validity of his discharge in a common-law action for damages after failing to sustain his grievance before the Board is to say that Congress planned that the Board should function only to render advisory opinions, and intended the [Railway Labor] Act's entire scheme for the settlement of grievances to be regarded `as wholly conciliatory in character, involving no element of legal effectiveness, with the consequence that the parties are entirely free to accept or ignore the Board's decision * * * [a contention] inconsistent with the Act's terms, purposes and legislative history.' Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 720-721 [65 S.Ct. 1282, 1288, 89 L.Ed. 1886].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.