Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 365 F.2d 326 - Uyeda v. Brooks

Uyeda v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

365 F.2d 326 · 1966

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably S. S. Kresge Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1969), National Labor Relations Board v. Caravelle Wood Products, Inc. (1972)

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

120196619701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Leedom v. Kyne · Boire v. Greyhound Corp. · Scalza v. United States · Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional De Marineros De Honduras

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

  1. ““Even if the Regional Director’s decision on the eligibility of the employer’s brother was incorrect (which we do not here decide,) it was an error within the discretion granted him under the Act and was not in excess of his power nor in contravention of the specific prohibition of the Act. We decide today only that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter and imply no opinion on the merits of the Acting Director’s decision.” For the above reasons it is ORDERED”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Eligibility . . . depends on whether an employee is sufficiently concerned with the terms and conditions of employment in a unit to warrant his participation in the selection of a collective bargaining agent.”
    1 later decision 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.