495 F. Supp. 60 - Millinery Workers', Etc. v. United Hatters, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 401 (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) · 29 U.S.C. § 402 · 29 U.S.C. § 411 · 29 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · International Association Machinists v. Gonzales · Thaggard v. United States · Will v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o invoke the due process requirements of Sec. 101(a)(5), some additional factor must be alleged along with mere merger or consolidation, such as invidiously discriminatory motivation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Nothing in the legislative history [of the LMRDA's trusteeship provisions] indicates a Congressional intent to curb, limit or render ineffective the power to direct merger.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“method of supervision or control whereby a labor organization suspends the autonomy otherwise available to a subordinate body under its constitution or bylaws,”
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.