Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting Co.’s Empirical Analysis
560 F.2d 389 · 1977
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 32 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Frank v. U.S. West, Inc. (1993), Trevino v. Celanese Corp. (1983)
74 federal appellate · 32 district · 10 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 Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co. · Sibley Memorial Hospital v. Wilson
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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) interrelation of operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common ownership or financial control.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It appears that the relation between the parent corporation and the subsidiary is a normal one and that the subsidiary corporation could in no way be called a “sham.” The control exercised by the parent by virtue of its stock holding is exercised in the usual way by the election of the subsidiary’s board and officers. The affairs of the two are generally handled separately. It is clear beyond dispute, and we do not understand plaintiff to contend otherwise, that the subsidiary corporation is in legal contemplation a separate one in that, for example, the parent would not be liable for the debts of a subsidiary and that the subsidiary would be recognized as a separate one for tax purposes. Thus the question sharply presented is whether, in an ordinary parent-subsidiary situation, can the fact that there are two corporations be ignored for present purposes and the corporations be treated as one? There is nothing in the statutory language or legislative history (1964 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm.News, p. 2355) which supports the contention that you can and there is no case called to our attention that so holds. We therefore decline to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Such liberal construction is also to be given to the definition of 'employer.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Owens v. Rush
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.