Johnson v. General Motors’s Empirical Analysis
641 F.2d 1075 · 1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably Clayton v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers (1981), Sellers v. Mc Floor Crafters Inc (1988)
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 411
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox · National Labor Relations Board v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America · Noyd v. Bond
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No labor organization shall limit the right of any member thereof to institute an action in any court . . . . Provided, That any such member may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed a four-month lapse of time . . . before instituting legal or administrative proceedings.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must balance the right of union members to institute suit against the policy of judicial noninterference in union affairs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he union changes roles in a case of this kind____ [W]hen the union member seeks relief through intraunion procedures, the Local and the [parent] will likely be in a. posture adverse to their member. Under such circumstances, a duty ought to rest upon the union to inform its members of available internal remedies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tobin v. Barry
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.