Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 F.2d 676 - Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Co. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

409 F.2d 676 · 1969

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 1983
most recently cited

40 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1983 · most notably Magnesium Casting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1971), Home Town Foods, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1969)

40 federal appellate ·

200196919701980decided

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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776 · Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America

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

  1. “The Board will grant a request for review only where compelling reasons exist therefor. Accordingly, a request for review may be granted only upon one or more of the following grounds: (1) That a substantial question of law or policy is raised because of (i) the absence of, or (ii) a departure from officially reported Board precedent. (2) That the Regional Director’s decision on a substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous on the record and such error prejudicially affects the rights of a party. (3) That the conduct of the hearing or any ruling made in connection with the proceeding has resulted in prejudicial error. (4) That there are compelling reasons for reconsideration of an important Board rule or policy,”
    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.