Baldini v. Local Union No International Union United Automobile Aerospace Andagricultural Implement Workers of America Uaw E’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 145 · 1978
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp. (1991), Clayton v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers (1981)
52 federal appellate · 1 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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Vaca v. Sipes · Dandridge v. Williams · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... As the Local Union officials' misrepresentations could be, in conjunction with the fact of failure to press the grievance, the very subject of relief in the internal procedures, their utterance can hardly rise to an excuse for not utilizing the procedures.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Occasional sentences lifted from their context might make it seem that invidious hostility or some sort of malice is always required, see, e.g., Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 , 300, 301 [ 91 S.Ct. 1909 , 1924, 1925, 29 L.Ed.2d 473 ] (1971); Williams v. General Foods Corp., 492 F.2d 399 , 405 (7th Cir. 1974), but the treatment of the issue in Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., supra [ 96 S.Ct. 1048 , 47 L.Ed.2d 231 ] leaves little doubt that such has not become the law. Nor do we think a fair reading of Lockridge or Williams or other cases cited by the Company to this effect really supports its argument.”
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.