Eazor Express, Inc. v. The International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America’s Empirical Analysis
520 F.2d 951 · 1975
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Carbon Fuel Company v. United Mine Workers of America (1979), 318 Pa. Super. 90 - Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. (1984)
54 federal appellate · 5 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.
Relationships
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. · Eisenstadt v. Baker
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When all the members of a union employed by a given employer engage in a concerted strike not formally authorized by the union, as happened here, many courts hold the union responsible on the theory that mass action by union members must realistically be regarded as union action. The premise is that large groups of men do not act collectively without leadership and that a functioning union must be held responsible for the mass action of its members.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general rule is that when the damages resulting from a breach of contract are ascertainable with mathematical pre-' cisión prejudgment interest is awardable as of right. If, however, the claim is not for a liquidated sum but is nonetheless pecuniary rather than personal in its nature many courts will add prejudgment interest to the amount which they find would have been just compensation at the time of the breach, when in the exercise of their discretion it appears necessary to do so in order to arrive at fair compensation at the time of judgment. Miller v. Robertson, 1924, 266 U.S. 243, 258 , 45 S.Ct. 73 , 69 L.Ed. 265 ; United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 3 Cir. 1940, 113 F.2d 301, 308 , aff’d, 1942, 315 U.S. 289 , 62 S.Ct. 581 , 86 L.Ed. 855 ; Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., 3 Cir. 1956, 235 F.2d 224, 231 ; Marrazzo v. Scranton Nehi Bottling Co., 1970, 438 Pa. 72 , 263 A.2d 336 ; Restatement of Contracts § 337; McCormick on Damages, 1935, 356. We think that this is an appropriate rule for discretionary application as a matter of federal law in actions brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breaches of labor agreements and that the district court did not err in its discretionary application of the rule in this case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In all cases involving problems of causation and responsibility for harm, a good many factors have united in producing the result; the plaintiff's total injury may have been the result of many factors in addition to the defendant's tort or breach of contract. Must the defendant pay damages equivalent to the total harm suffered? Generally the answer is Yes, even though there were contributing factors other than his own conduct. Must the plaintiff show the proportionate part played by the defendant's breach of contract among all the contributing factors causing the injury, and must his loss be segregated proportionately? To these questions the answer is generally No. In order to establish liability the plaintiff must show that the defendant's breach was a "substantial factor" in causing the injury.”
2 later decisions 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.