Trbovich v. United Mine Workers’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
575 federal appellate · 257 district · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,816 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Maryland v. Louisiana (1981), Dunlop v. Bachowski (1975)
575 federal appellate · 257 district · 103 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 481 · 29 U.S.C. § 482 · 29 U.S.C. § 483
Relies on Calhoon v. Harvey · Wirtz v. Local 153 Glass Bottle Blowers Association · Hodgson v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers · Connecticut State Board of Parole v. Bey
Cited together with Donaldson v. United States · Calhoon v. Harvey · Wirtz v. Local 153 Glass Bottle Blowers Association · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New York · Cascade Natural Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co People of State of California
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 1,816 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requirement of the Rule is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest 'may be' inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“vital public interest in assuring free and democratic union elections that transcends the narrower interest of the complaining union member.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.””
18 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.