Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 538 F.2d 1152 - National Labor Relations Board v. J. P. Stevens & Co.

National Labor Relations Board v. J. P. Stevens & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

538 F.2d 1152 · 1976

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
4
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Blevins Popcorn Co. (1981), United States v. Ballis (1994)

53 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

40019761980199020002010decided

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 National Labor Relations Board v. Katz · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · National Labor Relations Board v. Truitt Manufacturing Co. · May Department Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is well-settled that an employer violates its duty to bargain collectively when it institutes changes in employment conditions without first consulting the union. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 , 82 S.Ct. 1107 , 8 L.Ed. 2d 230 (1962); NLRB v. Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Co., [ 369 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966)]. As the court said in NLRB v. J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 538 F.2d 1152, 1162 (5 Cir. 1976): The employer's power to alter working conditions in his plant is not contingent upon union agreement with his proposed change. The company has only to notify the union before effecting the change so as to give the union a meaningful chance to offer counter-proposals and counter-arguments.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “violations of the duty to bargain unless the company granted them as part of a long-standing, non-discretionary pattern of pay raises.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “duty was merely to present the Union with a meaningful chance to offer input into the decisional process.”
    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.