International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
558 federal appellate · 32 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 831 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co. (1969), United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (1965)
558 federal appellate · 32 district · 25 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
reviewedInternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. National Labor Relations Board (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Brooks v. National Labor Relations Board · J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 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 831 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 8(f) represents a real benefit to both employers and unions in the construction industry, allowing them to establish bargaining relationships without regard to a union’s majority status. But the Board cannot, as it did here and in Central Illinois, allow this relatively easy-to-establish option to be converted into a section 9(a) agreement that lacks support of a majority of employees. Otherwise the Board would be giving employers and unions “the power to completely frustrate employee realization of the premise of the Act — that its prohibitions will go far to assure freedom of choice and majority rule in employee selection of representatives.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“exclusive bargaining status to an agency selected by a minority of its employees, thereby impressing that agent upon the nonconsenting majority.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 103, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers · National Labor Relations Board v. American Bakeries Company, and Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America“(e)mployees shall (not only) have the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations”
6 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.