Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 U.S. 401 - Walsh v. E a Schlecht

Walsh v. E a Schlecht’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

351
cited by 351 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

140 federal appellate · 30 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 351 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu (1981), United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson (1982)

140 federal appellate · 30 district · 27 state decisions

1580197719801990200020102020decided

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. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney · Arroyo v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia

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

  1. “for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Petitioner also advances an argument, apparently not made in the Oregon courts, that the subcontractor’s clause ‘frustrates’ the objectives of the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. § 276a, by increasing his labor costs over the minimum required by that Act. However, the Davis-Bacon Act ‘was not enacted to benefit contractors, but rather to protect their employees from substandard earnings by fixing a floor under wages on Government projects.’ United States v. Binghamton Constr. Co., 347 U.S. 171 , 176—177, 74 S.Ct. 438 , 441, 98 L.Ed. 594 (1954). That objective is clearly not ‘frustrated’ when contractual arrangements between employers and their employees result in higher compensation and benefits than the floor established by the Act.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]mbiguously worded contracts should not be interpreted to render them illegal and unenforceable where the wording lends itself to a logically acceptable construction that renders them legal and enforceable.”
    4 later decisions 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.