Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 469 FSUPP 437 - Cappa v. Wiseman

Cappa v. Wiseman’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2016

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

11019791980199020002010decided

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. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 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 Vaca v. Sipes · Ker v. California · Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, a Corporation v. Communications Workers of America, an Unincorporated Association · Lewis v. Lowry · Warrior Constructors, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 926

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

  1. “Restricting the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement to its express terms is extremely unrealistic in circumstances where, as here, the parties have not actually negotiated the agreement themselves, but have attempted to adapt the terms of an industry-wide agreement to conditions in the workplace of a relatively unique .. . independent employer.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Union is recognized as the sole collective bargaining agency for the employees employed in the classifications set forth in this Master Agreement and in agreements supplementary hereto in force and effect on the date of this Master Agreement”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[B]oth parties recognize that particular characteristics of certain firms must be recognized . . . .”
    2 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.