Thomas v. LTV Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

39 F.3d 611 · 1994

Citation profile

102

cited by 102 later decisions

states following

March 2017

most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Merritt-Campbell, Inc. v. RxP Products, Inc. (1999), McClelland v. Gronwaldt (1998)

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck

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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees- in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor or ganizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Richter v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc. · Banks v. First Student Management LLC
“[H]ybrid suits formally comprise two causes of action. First, the employee alleges that the employer violated § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, ... 29 U.S.C. § 185 , by breaching the collective-bargaining agreement. Second, the employee claims that the union breached its duty of fair representation, which this Court has implied from the scheme of the [National Labor Relations Act section 8(b) ], by mishandling the ensuing grievanee-and-arbitration proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Fratus v. Marion Community Schools Board of Trustees · 952 F. Supp. 470 - Butschek v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
“when the meaning of contract terms is not the subject of dispute, the bare fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted in the course of state-law litigation plainly does not require the claim to be distinguished.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Hirras v. Natl RR Psngr Corp · Agustina Trevino Herminia Herrera Beatriz Olivarez and Gloria Guajardo v. Ramos

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.