Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 631 F.2d 1210 - Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Service, Inc.

Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Service, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

631 F.2d 1210 · 1980

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Meade v. Grubbs (1988), John v. State of Louisiana (1985)

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

32019801990200020102020decided

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 Vaca v. Sipes · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox · Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “§ 301 suits are confined to defendants who are signatories of the collective bargaining agreement under which they are brought ... (T)he Act was not designed to impose personal liability on employees of corporate organizations.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... the district court was correct in dismissing plaintiffs’ pendant state tort claims for emotional distress on the ground that the common law has been preempted by federal statute [referring to L.M.R.A.]. ( 631 F.2d 1212 )”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he three-month delay between the filing of defendant's motion to dismiss and entry of judgment against plaintiffs did not constitute the type of extreme delay”
    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.