Local Union No. 657 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Sidell’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.2d 1250 · 1977
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices v. Local of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices (1981), Stelling v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1547 (1978)
26 federal appellate · 2 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 Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Smith v. Evening News Assn. · Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney · Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any member of subordinate body of a labor organization affected by any violation of this subehapter (except section 461 of this title) may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the labor organization for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We need not face the issue whether a union constitution is a § 301(a) contract in this case, however. A factual prerequisite found in [cases where disputes about the interpretation of union constitutions provide jurisdiction under § 301(a)] is not alleged in this matter. . . . [T]here were no concrete allegations of actual threats to industrial peace. Furthermore, at oral argument before this court the plaintiffs offered no suggestion that employers were forced to make untenable choices concerning union representation. Therefore, the allegations concerning the union constitution reveal only an intra-union conflict. “Without this factual prerequisite being alleged, we do not meet the issue whether the union constitution is a contract, and we affirm the dismissal of these § 301(a) allegations.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If Congress intended to turn over to the federal courts the control and supervision of internal union affairs which have no external application to industrial peace or to collective bargaining agreements we believe that Congress would have said so explicitly. We agree . . . that it was not the intent of Congress for the courts to use the LMRA to police intraunion problems. ... It follows that § 301(a) does not confer federal jurisdiction over the case before us.” (Citation omitted.)”
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.