Smith v. Daws’s Empirical Analysis
614 F.2d 1069 · 1980
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 173 (§ 203 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 39 U.S.C. § 1001 · 39 U.S.C. § 1005 · 39 U.S.C. § 1208 · 5 U.S.C. § 2108 · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments) · 5 U.S.C. § 7511
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · National Association of Letter Carriers, Afl-Cio v. Sombrotto · Woodrow Haynes v. United States Pipe & Foundry Company (Anniston Soil Pipe Division, Formerly Known as T.C. King Pipe and Foundry Company) · National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. United States Postal Service
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[hjaving availed herself of the grievance-review procedures of the collective-bargaining contract, the plaintiff-employee is likewise subject to the contract’s provision that the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding. On its face, the ... provisions of [39 U.S.C.] section 1005(a) do not authorize administrative or judicial review of the correctness of the arbitrator’s findings and rationale.”
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.