Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. Nemitz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “An agreement made pursuant to the last sentence of Sec. 5(2) (f) may vary the protection afforded by the I.C.C. order, but it may not substantially abrogate employees' rights grounded in an I.C.C. order.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Laturner v. Burlington Northern, Inc. · Reno Antonioli v. Lehigh Coal And Navigation Company

2. ““As a condition of its approval, under this paragraph, of any transaction involving a carrier or carriers by railroad subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Commission shall require a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests of the railroad employees affected. In its order of approval the Commission shall include terms and conditions providing that during the period of four years from the effective date of such order such transaction will not result in employees of the carrier or carriers by railroad affected by such order being in a worse position with respect to their employment, except that the protection afforded to any employee pursuant to this sentence shall not be required to continue for a longer period, following the effective date of such order, than the period during which such employee was in the employ of such carrier or carriers prior to the effective date of such order. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, an agreement pertaining to the protection of the interests of said employees may hereafter be entered into by any carrier or carriers by railroad and the duly authorized representative or representatives of its or their employees.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Employees Protective Association v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and Special Board of Adjustment No. 813 · Reno Antonioli v. Lehigh Coal And Navigation Company

3. “We reviewed the history of § 5(2) (f) in Railway Executives’ Assn. v. United States, 339 U.S. 142 , 70 S.Ct. 530 , 94 L.Ed. 721 , and said that “one of its principal purposes was to provide mandatory protection for the interests of employees affected by railroad consolidations.” Id., at 148, 70 S.Ct. 530 , at 533. That “mandatory protection” can be accorded by terms provided by the Commission, or, as is more likely, by provisions of a collective agreement which the Commission adopts or approves as adequate for a minimum of four years (as required by the second sentence) or longer (as allowed by the first sentence) if the Commission so provides, Id., at 154 , 70 S.Ct. 530 at 536. The purpose of § 5(2) (f) was not to freeze jobs but to provide compensatory conditions. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. United States, 366 U.S. 169 , 175-176, 81 S.Ct. 913 , 916-917. 6 L.Ed.2d 206 . In that case, we noted that the Commission has consistently followed that practice “in over 80 cases, with the full support of the intervening brotherhoods.” Id., at 177 , 81 S.Ct. 913 , at 917. And the Commission over and over again has adopted the set of labor conditions contained in collective agreements in discharge of its duty under § 5(2) (f). See Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. Purchase, 261 L.C.C. 405, 434; Erie R. Co. Trackage Rights, 295 I.C.C. 303 , 305; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. Trackage Rights, 295 I.C.C. 743 , 755-756. When there is a collective agreement and the Commission, as here, adop”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Laturner v. Burlington Northern, Inc. · Rilling v. Burlington Northern Railroad