Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, National Capital Local Division 689, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, National Capital Local Division 689, Its Membersand Individually’s Empirical Analysis
531 F.2d 617 · 1976
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Fortin v. Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare (1982), Food Lion, Incorporated v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio-Clc, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc (1997)
22 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Maggio v. Zeitz · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train · Indian Towing Co. v. United States · Florida Power Corp. v. Gainesville Utilities Department
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]very civil contemnor who asserts a genuine issue of material fact is entitled to a full, impartial hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kenneth Mercer, Tom Tioran, David Tootle, Edward Koraski, Pre-Trial Detainees in the Chatham County Jail, Indv. and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated · Food Lion, Incorporated v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio-Clc, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc“A fine imposed by the court in the absence of a motion by the party in interest would transmute the proceeding into a punitive one for criminal contempt.... The effective waiver of the complainant's interest removes the legal basis for imposition of civil contempt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hicks v. Pearlstein“[i]n the civil contempt setting, the court has no independent interest in vindicating its authority should its orders be violated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hicks v. Pearlstein
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.