Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 362 U.S. 365 - Marine Cooks Stewards Afl v. Panama Steamship Company

Marine Cooks Stewards Afl v. Panama Steamship Company’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

339
cited by 339 later decisions
28
cited 28 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

167 federal appellate · 9 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 339 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Townsend v. Sain (1963), United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (1965)

167 federal appellate · 9 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 10 states

15901960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedMarine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama Steamship Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 101 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 104 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 113 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 52 (§ 20 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · United States v. Hutcheson · Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. · Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & 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 339 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[The NLA's] language is broad because Congress was intent upon taking the federal courts out of the labor injunction business....”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No court of the United States, as defined in this chapter, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a ease involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(9) The term `labor dispute' includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”
    4 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.