Frankl v. HTH Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.3d 1334 · 2011
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 153 (§ 3 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. United Mine Workers of America
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n evaluating the likelihood of success, “it is necessary to factor in the district court’s lack of jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, and the deference accorded to NLRB determinations by the courts of appeals.” It is, after all, the Board and not the courts, which “has primary responsibility for declaring federal labor policy.” Additionally, and for similar reasons, “even on an issue of law, the district court should be hospitable to the views of the General Counsel, however novel.” Given these considerations, it remains the case—whether or not the Board itself approved the filing of the § 10(j) petition—that the regional director in a § 10(j) proceeding “can make a threshold showing of likelihood of success by producing some evidence to support the unfair labor practice charge, together with an arguable legal theory.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[E]ven if the Board subsequently orders a bargaining remedy, the union is likely weakened in the interim, and it will be difficult to recreate the original status quo with the same relative position of the bargaining parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“And the Board generally does not order retroactive relief, such as back pay or damages, to rank-and-file employees for the loss of economic benefits that might have been obtained had the employer bargained in good faith.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.