Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 495 F.2d 919 - Newgent v. Modine Manufacturing Co.

Newgent v. Modine Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

495 F.2d 919 · 1974

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
October 2008
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co. (1980), Jones v. General Tire & Rubber Co. (1976)

33 federal appellate · 4 district ·

3701974198019902000decided

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 Noyd v. Bond · Brady v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Allen Dahl v. Republican State Committee · Neal v. System Board of Adjustment

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

  1. “(n)ecessarily implied in this obligation is the duty to become aware of the nature and availability of union remedies.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(w)here . . . there is no question as to the adequacy and mandatory nature of the intra-union remedies it is well settled that an exhaustion of the remedies is an indispensable prerequisite to the institution of a civil action against a union.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Those cases decided by an administrative arm of the International Executive Board, pursuant to Article 12, § 17, or by the International Executive Board, which concern action or inaction relative to the processing of a grievance, in which the appellant has alleged, before the administrative arm, or the International Executive Board, that the grievance was improperly handled because of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with the management”. (UAW Constitution 33, Paragraph 8(b)).”
    1 later decision 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.