Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 F.3d 1132 - Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters’s Empirical Analysis

56 F.3d 1132 · 1995

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
January 2015
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2015

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80199520002010decided

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. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act)

Relies on United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · FMC Corp. v. Holliday · Etlin v. Etlin · Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad

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

  1. “'to whether the arbitrator's solution can be rationally derived from some plausible theory of the general framework or intent of the agreement.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “when the arbitrator exceeds the boundaries of the issues submitted to him.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority.”
    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.