Wimberly v. Clark Controller Co.’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.2d 225 · 1966
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp. (1976), Addington v. Farmer's Elevator Mutual Insurance (1981)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
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 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox · The Black-Clawson Company, Inc., Paper MacHine Division v. International Association of MacHinists Lodge 355, District 137, and Theodore A. Best · Oddie v. Ross Gear & Tool Co. · Fraser v. Magic Chef-Food Giant Markets, Inc.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[a]t best, the motion to strike raised an issue as to the admissibility of the evidence offered in the affidavit, and the competency of the affiant to testify to the matters stated therein.” Wimberly v. Clark Controller Company, supra at 227.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While it is certainly the better practice to specifically rule on all pending motions, the determination of a motion need not always be expressed but may be implied by an entry of an order inconsistent with granting the relief sought.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The above language quoted from the agreement entered into between Clark and the Union [the recognition clause] has the same limiting effect as the provisions contained in Oddie v. Ross Gear and Tool Company . . . The agreement does not give rights to employees of Clark, wherever Clark might be located. As a matter of law, the complaint did not state a cause of action for the lay-offs resulting from the transfer of the Woodland Avenue plant to South Carolina.” 364 F.2d at 228 .”
1 later decision 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.