Kling v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.2d 1044 · 1975
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2003 · most notably United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell (1981), National Labor Relations Board v. American Postal Workers Union (1980)
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Vaca v. Sipes · National Labor Relations Board v. Miranda Fuel Co., Inc., National Labor Relations Board v. Local 553, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America · Beriault v. Local 40, Super Cargoes & Checkers of the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union · National Labor Relations Board v. Lenkurt Electric Co.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or invidious manner in regard to an employee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act for a bargaining representative to act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or invidious manner in regard to an employee. . . . Similar in its facts and compelling in its argument, Miranda Fuel should, in our view, control the result here. In both cases, there was evidence of undue pressure from fellow employees and from the union shop steward. In both cases, the seniority reduction was sought without valid reason and hence was an arbitrary exercise of union power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although decisions of the Board are entitled to great respect by a reviewing court, they will be set aside if the record clearly precludes the Board’s decisions and the evidence calls for inferences contrary to those drawn by the Board. Universal Camera v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 ; NLRB v. Lenkurt Electric Co., 438 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1971).””
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.