Mayer v. Ordman’s Empirical Analysis
391 F.2d 889 · 1968
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Charles M. Henderson, Regional Director of Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 50, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701, Pacific Maritime Association v. National Labor Relations Board (1972), Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Irving (1979)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 153 (§ 3 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The cases are clear that Congress has provided an administrative tribunal, the National Labor Relations Board, to administer the Labor Acts and that, other than final orders from the NLRB, which are appealable to the United States Courts of Appeal, the power of the Board in disputes between labor and management is exclusive . . . Plaintiff’s reliance on the grant of general jurisdiction, the constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, are not sufficient. A review by the Federal District Courts is not always necessary to preserve or protect rights created by Congress. Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Bd., 320 U.S. 297, 301 , 64 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943). Congress is entitled to determine the remedy it will provide, the extent to which it should be accorded and the means by which it should be made effective. Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 264 , 60 S.Ct. 561 , 84 L.Ed. 738 (1940).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saez v. Goslee““It is clear that the rights plaintiff seeks to enforce are statutory rights created expressly by Congress, and not constitutional rights. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a Board action in his behalf. This is a statutory remedy provided for the public benefit to be applied in the discretion of the General Counsel.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saez v. Goslee“National Labor Relations Act precludes District Court review of the manner in which the General Counsel of the Board investigated unfair labor practice charges and determines whether to issue a complaint thereon.”
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.