Buchholtz v. Swift & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2008
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Vaca v. Sipes · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But an accelerated summary judgment procedure must nevertheless await reasonable opportunity for the plaintiffs to complete discovery on the issues material to the Rule 56 [summary judgment] determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Jernigan
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.