Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 634 F.2d 295 - Del Casal v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

Del Casal v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

634 F.2d 295 · 1981

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
3
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Peterson v. Lehigh Valley District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners (1982), Castelli v. Douglas Aircraft Co. (1985)

37 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

44019811990200020102020decided

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 · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. · Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Shannon

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

  1. “that a union is not obligated to extend those internal benefits enjoyed by its members to nonmembers.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whether a union may refuse to represent. a member of the bargaining unit on the ground that he is not a member of the union without violating its duty of fair representation. Thirty-five years ago this court established the principle that a union may not discriminate against members of its bargaining unit on the basis of that person’s status as a non-member of the union.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “discriminatory refusal to allow a staff attorney to represent him at the System Board hearing based upon his nonmember status constituted a breach of [the union's] duty to fairly represent him”
    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.