De Veau v. Braisted’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
180 federal appellate · 78 district · 327 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 877 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994)
180 federal appellate · 78 district · 327 state decisions — followed in 37 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.
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 3253 · 18 U.S.C. § 202 · 18 U.S.C. § 2387 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 401 (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) · 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (§ 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Lovett · Hawker v. People of New York · Hill v. State of Florida Watson · Atlantic Refining Company v. Public Service Commission of the State of New York
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 877 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xcept as explicitly provided to the contrary, nothing in this Act shall reduce or limit the responsibilities of any labor organization or any officer, agent shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization ... under the laws of any State.”
70 later decisions quote this exact passage“legitimate and compelling state interest”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress expressly gave its consent to ... implementing legislation not formally part of the [Waterfront Commission] compact. This provision in the consent by Congress to a compact is so extraordinary as to be unique in the history of compacts. Of all the instances of congressional approval of state compacts ... we have found no other in which Congress expressly gave its consent to implementing legislation. It is instructive that this unique provision has occurred in connection with approval of a compact dealing with the prevention of crime where, because of the peculiarly local nature of the problem, the inference is strongest that local policies are not to be thwarted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.