Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
557 F.2d 521 · 1977
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Chapman v. AI Transport (2000), Schwarz v. Folloder (1985)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Vaca v. Sipes · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · General Drivers Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 89 v. Riss and Company
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.
“costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[T]he prevailing party is prima facie entitled to costs and it is incumbent upon the losing party to overcome that presumption ... [because] denial of costs is in the nature of a penalty for some defection ... in the course of the litigation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Both this Court and the Court of Appeals have found that there was a compliance with the applicable collective bargaining agreements, and so the Court's duty of examination with respect to the alleged violation of the ICC order is fulfilled. 13 "Next we turn to the question of the apportionment of the costs of the previous trial of this case. Initially, the Court held that each side was to bear its own costs, but the Court of Appeals remanded this matter because "the trial court gave no reasons for its decision to deny the prevailing parties their costs.”
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.