Queen Mary Restaurants Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
560 F.2d 403 · 1977
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Grinding Wheel Co. (1978), National Labor Relations Board v. Tomco Communications, Inc. (1978)
35 federal appellate · 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Katz · Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union v. National Labor Relations Board · Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Insurance Agents' International Union
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If facts are open to conflicting inferences, we are not at liberty to draw an inference different from the one drawn by the Board, even though it may seem more plausible and reasonable to us.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Board has been afforded flexibility to determine ... whether a party’s conduct at the bargaining table evidences a real desire to come into agreement. Findings as to the good faith of parties involved in collective bargaining is a matter for the Board’s expertise and will not be upset unless unsupported by substantial evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“substantial evidence that a negotiating party's attitude is inconsistent with its duty to seek an agreement”
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.