Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local Unions Nos. 128 & 633 v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
247 federal appellate · 39 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 551 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California (1983), John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston (1964)
247 federal appellate · 39 district · 24 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
reviewedRetail Clerks International Ass'n v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 181 (§ 211 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney · J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Insurance Agents' International Union
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 551 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“agreement between employers and labor organizations significant to the maintenance of labor peace between them.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If this kind of strike settlement were not enforceable under § 301 (a), responsible and stable labor relations would suffer, and the attainment of the labor policy objective of minimizing disruption of interstate commerce would be made more difficult. It is no answer that in a particular case the agreement might be enforceable in state courts: a main goal of § 301 was precisely to end ‘checkerboard jurisdiction,’ -» * *»”
2 later decisions 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.