Hawaiian Hauling Service, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 674 · 1976
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Pincus Bros. (1980), Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1978)
50 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 173 (§ 203 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin · Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes arising over the application or interpretation of an existing collective-bargaining agreement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The authorities cited by petitioner are inapt because they do not involve activities during the course of the grievance procedure.... [G]rievance procedures are analogous to litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“announce(s) a policy regarding deference to arbitration, (it cannot) blithely ignore it, thereby leading astray litigants who depended on it.”
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.