Cephas v. MVM, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
520 F.3d 480 · 2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1658 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“contracts between an employer and a labor organization,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n employee may sue an employer under § 301 ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under the CBA because plaintiff had been terminated at the written request of the government, and the CBA expressly stated that its grievance procedure did not apply under such circumstances. Id. at 483, 489 . The district court held that plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by Section 301, and that the applicable statute of limitations for any potential Section 301 claim was the six month period provided for by § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (b) (”
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.