National Labor Relations Board v. Tennessee Packers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
379 F.2d 172 · 1967
Citation profile
133 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently May 2006 · most notably Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board (1970), Carpenters Local Union No of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Pratt-Farnsworth Inc (1982)
133 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufacturing Co. · Difronzo v. United States · Pittsburgh Plate Glass 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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to raise “substantial and material factual issues”, it is necessary for a party to do more than question the interpretation and inferences placed upon the facts by the Regional Director. * * * It is incumbent upon the party seeking a hearing to clearly demonstrate that factual issues exist which can only be resolved by an evidentiary hearing. The exceptions must state the specific findings that are controverted and must show what evidence will be presented to support a contrary finding or conclusion. * * * Mere disagreement with the Regional Director’s reasoning and conclusions do not raise “substantial and material factual issues.” This is not to say that a party cannot except to the inferences and conclusions drawn by the Regional Director, but that such disagreement, in itself, cannot be the basis for demanding a hearing. To request a hearing a party must, in its exceptions, define its disagreements and make an offer of proof to support findings contrary to those of the Regional Director. The Board is entitled to rely on the report of the Regional Director in the absence of specific assertions of error, substantiated by offers of proof. The purpose behind the rule which requires a hearing only when “substantial and material factual issues” are raised is to avoid lengthy and protracted proceedings, and eliminate unnecessary delays in certifying the results of an election. If a hearing is required to be held on all exceptions to an election or report of a Regional D”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“substantial and material factual issues.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is not necessary that conduct which interferes with the freedom of choice in an election actually constitute an unfair labor practice”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.