Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
195 federal appellate · 92 district · 303 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 896 later decisions (62 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux (1987), Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992)
195 federal appellate · 92 district · 303 state decisions — followed in 36 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 29 U.S.C. § 164 (§ 14 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Hill v. State of Florida Watson
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 896 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.”
58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"As is immediately apparent from its language, § 14(b) was designed to prevent other sections of the Act from completely extinguishing state power over certain union-security arrangements. And it was the proviso to § 8(a)(3), expressly permitting agreements conditioning employment upon membership in a labor union, which Congress feared might have this result. It was desired to 'make certain' that § 8(a)(3) could not `be said to authorize arrangements of this sort in States where such arrangements were contrary to the State policy.' [Citation omitted.] "The connection between the § 8(a)(3) proviso and § 14(b) is clear. Whether they are perfectly coincident, we need not now decide, but unquestionably they overlap to some extent. At the very least, the agreements requiring `membership' in a labor union which are expressly permitted by the proviso are the same `membership' agreements expressly placed within the reach of state law by § 14(b). It follows that the General Motors case rules this one, for we there held that the `agency shop' arrangement involved herewhich imposes on employees the only membership obligation enforceable under § 8(a)(3) by discharge, namely, the obligation to pay initiation fees and regular duesis the `practical equivalent' of an `agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment.'"”
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.