Local 1498, American Federation of Government Employees v. American Federation of Government Employees’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.2d 486 · 1975
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Crilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (1976), Investment Co v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency I Xxx (1990)
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Barrett v. United States · Strawbridge v. Curtiss · Scalza v. United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(i) ‘Labor organization’ means a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce and includes any organization of any kind, any agency, or employee representation committee, group, association, or plan so engaged in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment, and any conference, general committee, joint or system board, or joint council so engaged which is subordinate to a national or international labor organization, other than a State or local central body. “(j) A labor organization shall be deemed to be engaged in an industry affecting commerce if it— * * * * * * “(2) although not certified, is a national or international labor organization or a local labor organization recognized or acting as the representative of employees of an employer or employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce; or * * * * * * “(4) has been chartered by a labor organization representing or actively seeking to represent employees within the meaning of paragraph (1) or (2) as the local or subordinate body through which such employees may enjoy membership or become affiliated with such labor organization; or “(5) is a conference, general committee, joint or system board, or joint council, subordinate to a national or international labor organization, which includes a labor organization engaged in an industr”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * # * * In defining “employer,” section 3(e) expressly excludes the “United States or any corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof.” ... A labor organization composed entirely of employees of the governmental entities excluded by section 3(e) would not be a labor organization for the purposes of the Act____ However, in the case of a national or international labor organization composed both of government locals and non-government or mixed locals, the parent organization as well as its mixed and non-government locals would be “labor organizations” and subject to the Act. In such case, the locals which are composed entirely of government employees would not be subject to the Act, although elections in which they participate for national officers or delegates would be so subject.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The executive order] was not issued under the statutory authority providing for presidential implementation or effectuation of statutory provisions.. .. Hence, while Executive Order No. 11491 regulates and implements federal government personnel policies, it does so solely as a product of executive authority and not as a consequence of congressional law making. Accordingly, this Executive Order ... cannot attain the status as [sic] a “law of the United States.””
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.