Scott v. Local Union 377, International Brotherhood of Teamsters’s Empirical Analysis
548 F.2d 1244 · 1977
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Bowen v. United States Postal Service (1983), Dutrisac v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1983)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Vaca v. Sipes · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · United States v. Testan · Czosek v. O'MARA · De Arroyo v. Sindicato De Trabajadores Packinghouse
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A different situation is presented, however, in [an] action against the Union, for in that action the principal element of Scott's damages is the amount which it cost him in attorney fees and other expenses to do that which the union was obliged but failed to do on his behalf. He was, therefore, entitled to include in his damages against the Union the amount which he reasonably expended in attorney fees and other costs in prosecuting his claim against the company, costs which he would not have incurred but for the Union’s breach.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court in Alyeska reaffirmed the traditional American rule that attorney fees are not ordinarily recoverable by the prevailing litigant in federal litigation in the absence of statutory authorization. We do not read the decision as in any was affecting those cases in which the attorney fees are not an award to the successful litigant in the ease at hand, but rather are the subject of the law suit itself. More particularly, we do not understand that the decision in Alyeska in any way affects the measure of damages which can be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff in a suit for a breach of a union’s duty of fair representation in an action under [Section] 301.”
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.