Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Local Union No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.2d 1354 · 1980
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Cancellier v. Federated Department Stores (1982), John Morrell Company v. Local Union 304a of United Food and Commercial Workers (1990)
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · National Labor Relations Board v. Katz · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[W]hen a union exerts economic pressure to achieve both lawful and unlawful objectives and the consequences were not separable, damages cannot be recovered unless the unlawful objective was a substantial cause of the pressure.’ [Citation.] Appellants claim that the underlying object of the strike was lawful—to obtain increased economic benefits for its members— even though the attempt to force multi-employer bargaining was unlawful. They argue that to recover damages Frito-Lay must either (1) distinguish between the effects of the legal and illegal objectives, or (2) if those effects are not separable, establish that the strike would not have occurred absent the illegal objectives. “[Our earlier decision] does not require that the illegal object be the sole cause of the strike, only that it be a ‘substantial’ cause or that it ‘materially contribute’ to the injury, ‘notwithstanding other factors contributed also.’ [Citation.] The Union’s argument misapprehends the principles applicable to proof of causation in cases such as this. The controlling rules derive from tort law principles where more than one factor can be a substantial cause, and no single factor need be the sole causative element. Here the district court properly found the illegal objective to be at least a substantial—if not the sole—cause of the strike; from this the court could reasonably infer a causal relationship between the illegal objectives and the damages attributable to the strike.” (Frito-Lay, Inc. v”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'(it) need not detail the exact amount suffered; it will suffice if the evidence shows the extent of damages as a matter of just and reasonable inference, although the result may be only approximate.' " Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Local Union No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, 623 F.2d 1354 , 1364 (9th Cir. 1980), (quoting Gulf Coast Building and Supply Co. v. Electrical Workers, Local 480, 428 F.2d 121 , 125-26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 942, 91 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed.2d 246 (1970)). As a corollary to this rule, a court will not "review on appeal the merits of various methods of calculation, so long as the method actually employed by the district court is designed to yield a reasonable approximation of damages.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Neither the Board nor the courts have ever required that employers organize themselves into a formal association to be considered an employer organization for purposes of the Act. On the contrary,”
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.