Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
263 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 383 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. (1976), 43 Cal. 3d 1379 - Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1987)
263 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedNational Labor Relations Board v. Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc. · Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. National Labor Relations 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 383 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“take measures designed to recreate the conditions and relationships that would have been had there been no unfair labor practice,”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“But the power of the Board 'to command affirmative action is remedial, not punitive, and is to be exercised in aid of the Board's authority to restrain violations and as a means of removing or avoiding the consequences of violation where those consequences are of a kind to thwart the purposes of the Act.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Local 127, United Shoe Workers of America v. Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co. · The Kroger Company v. National Labor Relations Board, and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio, Intervenor, and Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio, Intervenor. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio, and Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio, Intervenor v. National Labor Relations Board, and the Kroger Company, Intervenor“(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer — "(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title;”
3 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.