Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
185 federal appellate · 57 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 405 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Chicago and North Western Railway Company v. United Transportation Union (1971), Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Board (1992)
185 federal appellate · 57 district · 22 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
reviewedUnited Air Lines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board, National Mediation Board v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Railway Labor Act)
Relies on Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Leedom v. Kyne · Hannah v. Larche · Silver v. New York Stock Exchange · Boire v. Greyhound Corp.
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 405 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If any dispute shall arise among a carrier’s employees as to who are the representatives of such employees designated and authorized in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, it shall be the duty of the Mediation Board, upon request of either party to the dispute, to investigate such dispute and to certify to both parties, in writing, within thirty days after the receipt of the invocation of its services, the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify the same to the carrier. Upon receipt of such certification the carrier shall treat with the representative so certified as the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this chapter.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Congress decided on the method which might be employed to protect this “right”; and that where Congress “has not expressly authorized judicial review,” id., [320 U.S.] at 301, 64 S.Ct. at 97 , “this Court has often refused to furnish one even where questions of law might be involved,” id., at 303 , [ 64 S.Ct. at 98 ]. The Court’s conclusion was that “the intent seems plain — the dispute was to reach its last terminal point when the administrative finding was made. There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“We should note at the outset that the Board’s duty to investigate is a duty to make such investigation as the nature of the case requires. An investigation is “essentially informal, not adversary”; it is “not required to take any particular form.” (Footnote omitted.)”
7 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.