Sullivan v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.3d 770 · 2010
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston · National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. · Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey · Golden State Bottling Company Inc v. National Labor Relations Board
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is, and can be, no single definition of ‘successor’ which is applicable in every legal context. A new employer. . .may be a successor for some purposes and not for others.” Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, 417 U.S. 249 , 262 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. 2236 , 41 L.Ed.2d 46 (1974). “[Decisions on successorship must balance, inter alia, the national policies underlying the statute at issue and the interests of the affected parties,” Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 782 (quoting Steinbach, 51 F.3d at 846 ) (alteration in original). “Because the origins of successor liability are equitable, fairness is a prime consideration in its application.” Id. (Quoting Criswell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir.1989)). Thus, these decisions require[] analysis of the interests of the new employer and the employees and of the policies of the labor laws in light of the facts of each case and the particular legal obligation which is at issue, whether it be the duty to recognize and bargain with the union, the duty to remedy unfair labor practices, the duty to arbitrate, etc. Id. (quoting Howard Johnson, 417 U.S. at 262 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. 2236 ). The individual successorship factors outlined in Jeffries are, accordingly, given greater or lesser weight depending on the statutory context. Moreover, “in light of.. .the myriad factual circumstances and legal contexts in which [the employment law successor-ship issue] can arise”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Decisions on successorship must balance, inter alia, the national policies underlying the statute at issue and the interests of the affected parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The inquiry [in these successorship cases] is [therefore] not merely whether the new employer is a 'successor' in the strict corporate-law sense of the term. The successorship inquiry in the labor-law context is much broader.”
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.