Local No. 438 Construction & General Laborers' Union v. Curry’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 3 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 293 later decisions (90 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2011 · most notably Brady v. State of Maryland (1963), Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
79 federal appellate · 3 district · 88 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 164 (§ 14 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union v. National Labor Relations Board · Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776
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 293 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The allegations of the complaint, as well as the findings of the Georgia Supreme Court, made out at least an arguable violation of § 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (b). Consequently, the state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction or to adjudicate this controversy, which lay within the exclusive powers of the National Labor Relations Board. Plumbers, etc., of Local No. 298, A. F. of L. [Union] v. Door County, 359 U.S. 354, 359 , 79 S.Ct. 844, 847 , 3 L.Ed.2d 872 [37 LC 65, 403]; San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, etc., Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244-245 , 79 S.Ct. 773, 779 , 3 L.Ed.2d 775 [37 LC 65, 367]; Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., 358 U.S. 270 , 79 S.Ct. 273 , 3 L.Ed.2d 289 [36 LC 65, 145]; Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468, 478, 481 , 75 S.Ct. 480, 486-488 , 99 L.Ed. 546 [27 LC 67, 064]; Garner v. Teamsters, etc., Union No. 776, 346 U.S. 485, 489-491 , 74 S.Ct. 161, 165-166 , 98 L.Ed. 228 [24 LC 68, 020]. Nor is the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts sustainable, as respondents urge, by reason of the Georgia right-to-work law and by § 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 164 (b). This precise contention has been previously considered and rejected by this Court. Local Union 429, etc., v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co., 353 U.S. 969 , 77 S.Ct. 1056 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1133 [32 LC 70, 724], reversing 201 Tenn. 329 , 299 S.W.2d 8 . The Georgia Supreme Court clearly exceeded its power”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents . . . (7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an [***] object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, . . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]e believe our power to review this case rests upon solid ground. The federal question raised by petitioner in the Georgia court, and here, is whether the Georgia courts had power to proceed with and determine this controversy. The issue ripe for review is not whether a Georgia court has erroneously decided a matter of federal law in a case admittedly within its jurisdiction nor is it the question of whether federal or state law governs a case properly before the Georgia courts. What we do have here is a judgment of the Georgia court finally and erroneously asserting its jurisdiction to deal with a controversy which is beyond its power and instead is within the exclusive domain of the National Labor Relations Board.”
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.