Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 493 F.2d 93 - Local Union 1219 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America

Local Union 1219 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America’s Empirical Analysis

493 F.2d 93 · 1974

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
July 2009
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009 · most notably United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices v. Local of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices (1981), Stelling v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1547 (1978)

19 federal appellate · 4 district ·

2001974198019902000decided

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

Relies on Costello v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · National Association of Letter Carriers, Afl-Cio v. Sombrotto · Antonio Copra v. Jose A. Suro · Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Ltd.

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

  1. “Although Congress did indicate some reluctance to “effect extensive and detailed statutory regulation of internal union affairs,” (citations omitted), it is clear that the local and International are each suable entities under the act. When two such entities’ relationship is a matter of contract, and that contract directly concerns the representation of workers in collective bargaining, there is no reason to assume that Congress did not intend the statute to apply simply because the two parties to the contract are related. Furthermore, this suit is on a contract and is not intended to enforce internal customs and practices of the unions which have not been reduced to a contract; exercising jurisdiction here will not involve the courts in regulating internal union matters which Congress did not intend to control, (citations omitted) 15”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.