United States Gypsum Co. v. United Steelworkers of America’s Empirical Analysis
384 F.2d 38 · 1967
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Jenkins v. United Gas Corp. (1968), Samuel Culpepper, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Reynolds Metals Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross (1970)
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Additionally, where unusual situations are presented involving possible clashes between arbitral and Board determinations, between policies for arbitration and for authoritative administrative disposition, the determination that each grievance is arbitral is that and nothing more. Such pronouncement does not begin to put an advance Court imprimatur on the award. That can await enforcement. “We make doubly plain that this opinion in no way indicates what, if any, decision an arbitrator should or must make. We hold merely that he should determine the grievance. Whether the decision or the remedy prescribed is, or is not, supportable is for another day.” International Ass’n of Machinists v. Hayes Corp., supra, 296 F.2d [238] at 244. And for all we know this might wash out. Cf. Byers v. Byers, 5 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 205 ; City of Houston v. Standard-Triumph Motor Co., 5 Cir., 1965, 347 F.2d 194 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would derogate from “[t]he federal policy of settling labor disputes by arbitration,” [citing cases] if a change in the corporate structure or ownership of a business enterprise had the automatic consequence of removing a duty to arbitrate previously established; this is so as much in cases like the present, where the contracting employer disappears into another by merger, as in those in which one owner replaces another but the business entity remains the same. ( 376 U.S. 543, 549 , 84 S.Ct. 909, 914 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. The Company refuses to recognize and comply with the contract executed on March 30,1964. ♦X- -X- -X- -X* * * “3. The Company has failed and refused to deduct union dues in accordance with Article VI of the contract. * # -X* -X- * -X- “5. The Company has announced that it is not bound by said contract. “6. The Company has refused to recognize or deal with the duly authorized officers and representatives of the Union.””
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.