International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 249 v. Western Pennsylvania Motor Carriers Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 783 · 1978
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995), Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc. (1994)
23 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 United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston · Humphrey v. Moore
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“practice whereby a carrier may instruct a driver to leave his trailer at a specified location, and not to remain with it during loading or unloading. Although”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inadvertent or bona fide errors made by the Employer(s) or the Union in applying the terms and conditions”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no general duty to submit labor disputes to arbitration. Rather, ‘arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.’ Thus, whether or not a party is bound to arbitrate a given issue is a matter to be determined ‘on the basis of the contract entered into by the parties.’ The question whether the parties have entered into a contract imposing a’ duty to arbitrate is one that must be decided by the court and not by an arbitrator. In making its determination, however, a court must be ever mindful of the strong national policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes. Arbitration clauses are to be construed broadly, and there is ‘a strong presumption favoring arbitrability.’ The application of this policy is clearest when a party asserts that a particular type of claim falls outside the scope of an arbitration clause. In such cases, ‘[a]n order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.’”
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.