Samoff v. Building And Construction Trades Council Of Philadelphia And Vicinity’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Harold A. Boire Etc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Etc. (1973), Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers' Union (1974)
26 federal appellate · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 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 Castro v. United States · Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. · Schauffler ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Ass'n · San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild v. Kennedy · Madden v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots of America
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The Section 10 (i) procedure reflects the congressional determination that certain unfair labor practices are so disruptive that where there is reasonable cause to believe that they are being engaged in their continuance during the pendency of charges before the Board should not be permitted. * * * The Board need not show that an unfair labor practice has been committed, but need only demonstrate that there is reasonable cause to believe that the elements of ' an unfair labor practice are present. Nor need the Board conclusively show the validity of the propositions of law underlying its charge; it is required to demonstrate merely that the propositions of law which it has applied to the charge are substantial and not frivolous. * * * ” Schauffler, supra, at 187.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents ****** (7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees: ****** (C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under section 159(c) of this title being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing: Provided, That when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of section 159(c)(1) of this title or the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organization, direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate and shall certify the results thereof: Provided further, That nothing in this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization, unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by any ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The district court noted that Schauffler set the applicable standard for determining when a § 10(Z) injunction should be granted. But it went on to say: ‘We do not read § 10(Z), as thus construed, to require a District Court, charged with granting injunctive relief under § 10 (Z) where it is “just and proper”, to grant relief based upon legal theories advanced by the Board, which, while thoughtfully presented and not frivolous, are, in the view of the Court, erroneous.’ . (Emphasis added.)”
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.