National Labor Relations Board v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, a Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 374 · 1973
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson (1986), Peerless of America, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1973)
54 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co. · Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the possibility of erasing the effects of past practices and of ensuring a fair election (or a fair rerun) by the use of traditional remedies, though present, is slight”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In such a case, however, the prediction must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer’s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control.... (citation omitted). If there is any implication that an employer may or may not take action solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities and known only to him, the statement is no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion. . ..”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The employees could reasonably have inferred that these events [a litany of horrors, including strikes, plant closings, and loss of benefits] would result not from the inevitable forces of the market, but from the deliberate acts of the company taken in reprisal”
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.