Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
170 federal appellate · 27 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 392 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc. (2002), Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris (1994)
170 federal appellate · 27 district · 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRailway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 101 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 104 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 108 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 156 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 565 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 49 U.S.C. § 10101 (Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982)
Relies on Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Morton v. Mancari · Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 · United States v. Fausto · Watt v. Alaska
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 392 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he decision of a railroad employer to go out of business and consequently reduce to zero the number of available jobs is not a change in the conditions of employment forbidden by the status quo provision of Sec. 156.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“as embodied in collective bargaining agreements, except by way of section 6. 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 Seventh. Section 6 provides in relevant part that both the railroad and the union must give at least thirty days' written notice of any proposed change in an agreement, and once notice is given,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice. The parties must confer, and if conference fails to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the National Mediation Board, which may also proffer its services sua sponte if it finds a labor emergency to exist. If mediation fails, the Board must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent. If arbitration is rejected and the dispute threatens “substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the Mediation Board shall notify the President,” who may create an emergency board to investigate and report on the dispute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.