Drug Plastics Glass Company Inc v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
44 F.3d 1017 · 1995
Citation profile
25 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably United States v. Pacheco (2000), Paksippany Hotel Management Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1996)
25 federal appellate ·
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. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Fant Milling Co. · Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by discrimination in regard to ... any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“from the same factual situation or sequence of events”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It cannot be that allegations in a charge and a complaint having no more in common than that they concern the same employer and occur at the same location are sufficiently related to satisfy Section 10(b). Were that the rule, the Board would be free to include in a complaint anything transpiring at an employer’s place of business without regard to the type of violation involved or when it occurred. Such a broad interpretation of the Board’s power clearly would clash with the limiting intent pervading Section 10(b).”
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.