United States v. Louis Lanni, Sr. In No. 72-1028, and Mary Maiale. Appeal of Mary Maiale, in No. 72-1029’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.2d 1102 · 1972
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably United States v. Evans (1978), 197 W. Va. 588 - State v. Miller (1996)
27 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
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 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Morissette v. United States · United States v. Harriss · United States v. Wiltberger · United States v. Sisson · Pierson v. Ray
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in respect to any of his actions, decisions, or duties as a representative of employees or as ... officer or employee of such labor organizations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Taft-Hartley Bill did not succeed in stamping out the corruption problem, however. Many of those dishonest enough to betray the employees' interests prior to the legislation were devious enough to avoid the reach of the Taft-Hartley Act. '[Widespread public concern' with `racketeering, crime and corruption' [fn. omitted] continued; and the Eighty-Sixth Congress responded by enacting the Labor Management Act of 1959. By so doing, Congress hoped to `close loopholes' which 'both employer representatives and union officials [had] turned to advantage at the expense of employees.' [Fn. omitted.] The bill was intended to make certain that employer representatives, like other trustees, would not profit from their positions of trust.”
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.