Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 640 F.2d 197 - National Labor Relations Board v. Max Factor and Company v. Luisa Gratz, Intervenor

National Labor Relations Board v. Max Factor and Company v. Luisa Gratz, Intervenor’s Empirical Analysis

640 F.2d 197 · 1981

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
June 2013
most recently cited

30 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Kallmann v. National Labor Relations Board (1981), National Labor Relations Board v. Nevis Industries, Inc. (1981)

30 federal appellate ·

3401981199020002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 173 (§ 203 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'The standard is whether [the employee's] improper conduct was so indefensible as to forfeit the Act's protection.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A fuller statement by the Board of its reasons for this conclusion would, as [the dissent] states, have been helpful. We cannot say, however, that its refusal to defer on the ground of repugnance to the Act was, on the record before the ALJ, an abuse of discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he Board has wide discretion to apply its Spielberg criteria,”
    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.